Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/pleaofclarenceda1928darr 


COPYRIGHT  1924  BY 
RALPH  FLETCHER  SEYMOII 


CLARENCE  DARROW 

23^  ®25± 

MCMXXUU 

RICHARD  LOEB  and  NATHAN  LEOPOLD  Jr 

onfUnal  forJHurdcr 

Authorised  and<Sr^ised^itiou 
Soother  with  a  brief  Nummary  of 

the^Riacts 


^Elalph  ^Fletther  j^c&mour 
4thua&o 


This  book  is  distributed  exclusively  through  GEO.  M.  STUTZ 
1230 First  National  Bank  Building,  Detroit,  Mich. 


Society  in  its  relation  to  those  charged 
with  crime,  through  its  organized  agen¬ 
cies  first  demanded  revenge  as  a  punish¬ 
ment,  then  protection,  then  restraint.  To¬ 
day  it  aims  to  reform  or  reconstruct  the 
offender,  and  already  anticipates  the  day 
when  prevention  of  crime  may  become  a 
practical  achievement. 

Clarence  Darrow  gave  voice  to  this 
forward  looking  principle  of  social  gov¬ 
ernment  in  his  eloquent  plea  before  the 
bar  of  Justice,  and  has  expressed  it  with 
such  clearness  and  conviction  that  it  must 
long  remain  as  a  masterpiece  of  pleading 
for  the  social  outcast  and  the  offender. 
As  such  the  publishers  have  undertaken 
its  publication* 


THE  FACTS 


On  May  21,  1924,  Robert  Franks,  aged  fourteen,  was 
picked  up  on  one  of  the  prominent  streets  of  Chicago  by 
an  automobile  which  was  in  the  possession  of  Nathan 
Leopold,  Jr.,  and  Richard  Loeb.  He  was  driven  within 
half  a  block  of  Loeb’s  house  and  about  the  same  dis¬ 
tance  from  Frank’s  house,  was  hit  on  the  head  with  a 
chisel  and  killed. 

Robert  Franks  was  in  the  front  seat  when  the  blow  was 
struck.  He  was  then  pulled  into  the  back  seat  and  driven 
about  twenty  miles  through  some  of  the  principal  streets 
of  Chicago  and  along  the  main  automobile  way.  He  was 
taken  into  the  machine  about  half  past  four  o’clock  and 
taken  by  daylight  through  the  main  populated  parts  of 
the  south  side  and  that  portion  which  is  mostly  fre¬ 
quented  by  automobiles.  He  was  killed  instantly  and 
after  this  ride,  his  body  was  stripped  and  he  was  put  into 
a  culvert  in  a  lonely  spot  about  twenty  miles  from  where 
he  was  picked  up. 

Nathan  Leopold,  Jr.,  was  nineteen  years  old  and  Rich¬ 
ard  Loeb,  eighteen  years  old.  Loeb  was  well  acquainted 
with  young  Franks.  Before  this  time,  Leopold  and  Loeb 
had  prepared  a  letter  addressed  “Dear  Sir,”  in  which  they 
demanded  $10,000  ransom.  Even  the  minute  before 
Franks  was  picked  up  on  the  street  neither  Leopold  nor 
Loeb  had  settled  on  the  person  they  should  kidnap.  Im¬ 
mediately  after  the  killing  the  ransom  letter  was  ad¬ 
dressed  and  mailed  to  the  father  of  Robert  Franks.  All 
three  families  are  people  of  considerable  wealth. 

Leopold  was  the  youngest  boy  who  ever  graduated 
from  die  Chicago  University  and  at  the  time,  was  pre¬ 
paring  to  enter  Harvard  Law  College.  Before  entering 


Harvard,  he  was  to  take  a  trip  to  Europe  and  had  already 
purchased  his  ticket  for  the  ocean  voyage. 

Loeb  was  the  youngest  graduate  of  the  University  of 
Michigan  and  was  intending  to  study  law.  Both  Leo¬ 
pold  and  Loeb  had  always  been  well  supplied  with  money 
and  there  was  no  financial  reason  why  they  should  have 
committed  either  the  crime  of  kidnaping  or  that  of  mur¬ 
der. 

When  the  body  of  Robert  Franks  was  placed  in  the 
culvert,  the  eye  glasses  of  Leopold  dropped  from  his 
pocket  and,  after  several  other  arrests,  these  were  found 
by  the  police  and  identified  as  Leopold’s  glasses.  At  the 
time  of  their  arrest,  no  one  believed  that  they  had  any¬ 
thing  to  do  with  the  kidnaping  and  killing.  They  were 
taken  to  the  State’s  Attorney’s  office  and  after  being  in 
the  custody  of  the  attorneys  and  officers  for  about  sixty 
hours,  they  confessed  to  the  full  details  of  the  crime. 

It  was  claimed  by  the  defense  that  their  minds  were 
diseased  and  also  that  on  account  of  their  extreme  youth, 
they  should  not  be  hanged. 

The  Illinois  statutes  provide  that  on  a  verdict  or  plea 
of  guilty,  a  defendant  may  be  sentenced  to  death  or  to  a 
term  in  the  penitentiary  for  not  less  than  fourteen  years 
and  up  to  life. 

The  statute  also  provides  that  on  a  plea  of  guilty,  “In 
all  cases  where  the  court  possesses  any  discretion  as  to  the 
extent  of  the  punishment,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  court 
to  examine  witnesses  as  to  the  aggravation  and  mitigation 
of  the  offense.” 

The  defendants  in  this  case  pleaded  guilty  before 
Judge  Caverly;  thereupon  evidence  was  offered  both  by 
the  State  and  the  defense  on  the  question  of  aggravation 
and  mitigation.  Alienists  were  introduced  by  both  sides, 
touching  the  mental  condition  of  the  two  boys. 

The  hearing  occupied  about  thirty  days.  The  defend¬ 
ants  were  sentenced  to  the  penitentiary  for  life. 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW 


OUR  HONOR,  it  has  been  almost  three 
months  since  the  great  responsibility  of  this 
case  was  assumed  by  my  associates  and  my¬ 
self.  I  am  willing  to  confess  that  it  has 
been  three  months  of  great  anxiety.  A 
1 1  gladly  would  have  been  spared  excepting 
for  my  feelings  of  affection  toward  some  of  the  members 
of  one  of  these  unfortunate  families.  This  responsibility 
is  almost  too  great  for  any  one  to  assume;  but  we  law¬ 
yers  can  no  more  choose  than  the  court  can  choose. 

Our  anxiety  over  this  case  has  not  been  due  to  the 
facts  that  are  connected  with  this  most  unfortunate  af¬ 
fair,  but  to  the  almost  unheard  of  publicity  it  has  re¬ 
ceived;  to  the  fact  that  newspapers  all  over  this  country 
have  been  giving  it  space  such  as  they  have  almost  never 
before  given  to  any  case.  The  fact  that  day  after  day 
the  people  of  Chicago  have  been  regaled  with  stories  of 
all  sorts  about  it,  until  almost  every  person  has  formed 
an  opinion. 

And  when  the  public  is  interested  and  demands  a  pun¬ 
ishment,  no  matter  what  the  offense,  great  or  small,  it 
thinks  of  only  one  punishment,  and  that  is  death. 

It  may  not  be  a  question  that  involves  the  taking  of 
human  life;  it  may  be  a  question  of  pure  prejudice  alone; 
but  when  the  public  speaks  as  one  man  it  thinks  only  of 
killing. 


3 


4 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


We  have  been  in  this  stress  and  strain  for  three 
months.  We  did  what  we  could  and  all  we  could  to  gain 
the  confidence  of  the  public,  who  in  the  end  really  con¬ 
trol,  whether  wisely  or  unwisely. 

It  was  announced  that  there  were  millions  of  dollars 
to  be  spent  on  this  case.  Wild  and  extravagant  stories 
were  freely  published  as  though  they  were  facts.  Here 
was  to  be  an  effort  to  save  the  lives  of  two  boys  by  the 
use  of  money  in  fabulous  amounts,  amounts  such  as  these 
families  never  even  had. 

We  announced  to  the  public  that  no  excessive  use  of 
money  would  be  made  in  this  case,  neither  for  lawyers 
nor  for  psychiatrists,  or  in  any  other  way.  We  have 
faithfully  kept  that  promise. 

The  psychiatrists,  as  has  been  shown  by  the  evidence 
in  this  case,  are  receiving  a  per  diem,  and  only  a  per 
diem,  which  is  the  same  as  is  paid  by  the  State. 

The  attorneys,  at  their  own  request,  have  agreed  to 
take  such  amount  as  the  officers  of  the  Chicago  Bar  As¬ 
sociation  may  think  is  proper  in  this  case. 

If  we  fail  in  this  defense  it  will  not  be  for  lack  of 
money.  It  will  be  on  account  of  money.  Money  has 
been  the  most  serious  handicap  that  we  have  met.  There 
are  times  when  poverty  is  fortunate. 

I  insist,  your  Honor,  that  had  this  been  the  case  of 
two  boys  of  these  defendants’  age,  unconnected  with  fam¬ 
ilies  supposed  to  have  great  wealth,  there  is  not  a  State’s 
Attorney  in  Illinois  who  would  not  have  consented  at 
once  to  a  plea  of  guilty  and  a  punishment  in  the  peni¬ 
tentiary  for  life.  Not  one. 

No  lawyer  could  have  justified  any  other  attitude.  No 
prosecution  could  have  justified  it. 

We  could  have  come  into  this  court  without  evidence, 
without  argument,  and  this  court  would  have  given  to 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


5 


us  what  every  judge  in  the  City  of  Chicago  has  given  to 
every  boy  in  the  City  of  Chicago  since  the  first  capital 
case  was  tried.  We  would  have  had  no  contest. 

We  are  here  with  the  lives  of  two  boys  imperiled,  with 
the  public  aroused. 

For  what? 

Because,  unfortunately,  the  parents  have  money. 
Nothing  else. 

I  told  your  Honor  in  the  beginning  that  never  had 
there  been  a  case  in  Chicago,  where  on  a  plea  of  guilty 
a  boy  under  twenty-one  had  been  sentenced  to  death. 
I  will  raise  that  age  and  say,  never  has  there  been  a  case 
where  a  human  being  under  the  age  of  twenty-three  has 
been  sentenced  to  death.  And,  I  think  I  am  safe  in 
saying,  although  I  have  not  examined  all  the  records 
and  could  not — but  I  think  I  am  safe  in  saying — that 
never  has  there  been  such  a  case  in  the  State  of  Illinois. 

And  yet  this  court  is  urged,  aye,  threatened,  that  he 
must  hang  two  boys  contrary  to  precedents,  contrary  to 
the  acts  of  every  judge  who  ever  held  court  in  this  state. 
Why? 

Tell  me  what  public  necessity  there  is  for  this. 

Why  need  the  State’s  Attorney  ask  for  something  that 
never  before  has  been  demanded? 

Why  need  a  judge  be  urged  by  every  argument,  mod¬ 
erate  and  immoderate,  to  hang  two  boys  in  the  face  of 
every  precedent  in  Illinois,  and  in  the  face  of  the  prog¬ 
ress  of  the  last  fifty  years? 

Lawyers  stand  here  by  the  day  and  read  cases  from 
the  Dark  Ages,  where  Judges  have  said  that  if  a  man 
had  a  grain  of  sense  left  and  a  child  if  he  was  barely 
©ut  of  his  cradle,  could  be  hanged  because  he  knew  the 
difference  between  right  and  wrong.  Death  sentences 
for  eighteen,  seventeen,  sixteen  and  fourteen  years  have 


6 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


been  cited.  Brother  Marshall  has  not  half  done  his  job. 
He  should  read  his  beloved  Blackstone  again. 

I  have  heard  in  the  last  six  weeks  nothing  but  the  cry 
for  blood.  I  have  heard  from  the  office  of  the  State’s 
Attorney  only  ugly  hate. 

I  have  heard  precedents  quoted  which  would  be  a  dis¬ 
grace  to  a  savage  race. 

I  have  seen  a  court  urged  almost  to  the  point  of  threats 
to  hang  two  boys,  in  the  face  of  science,  in  the  face  of 
philosophy,  in  the  face  of  humanity,  in  the  face  of  ex¬ 
perience,  in  the  face  of  all  the  better  and  more  humane 
thought  of  the  age. 

Why  did  not  my  friend,  Mr.  Marshall,  who  dug  up 
from  the  relics  of  the  buried  past  these  precedents  that 
would  bring  a  blush  of  shame  to  the  face  of  a  savage, 
read  this  from  Blackstone: 

“Under  fourteen,  though  an  infant  shall  be  judged  to 
be  incapable  of  guile  prima  facie,  yet  if  it  appeared  to 
the  court  and  the  jury  that  he  was  capable  of  guile,  and 
could  discern  between  good  and  evil,  he  may  be  convicted 
and  suffer  death.” 

Thus  a  girl  thirteen  has  been  burned  for  killing  her 
mistress. 

How  this  case  would  delight  Dr.  Krohn! 

He  would  lick  his  chops  over  that  more  gleefully  than 
over  his  dastardly  homicidal  attempt  to  kill  these  boys. 

One  boy  of  ten,  and  another  of  nine  years  of  age,  who 
had  killed  his  companion  were  sentenced  to  death;  and 
he  of  ten  actually  hanged. 

Why? 

He  knew  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong.  He 
had  learned  that  in  Sunday  School. 

Age  does  not  count. 

Why,  Mr.  Savage  says  age  makes  no  difference,  and 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


7 


that  if  this  court  should  do  what  every  other  court  in 
Illinois  has  done  since  its  foundation,  and  refuse  to  sen¬ 
tence  these  boys  to  death,  no  one  else  would  ever  be 
hanged  in  Illinois. 

Well,  I  can  imagine  some  results  worse  than  that.  So 
long  as  this  terrible  tool  is  to  be  used  for  a  plaything, 
without  thought  or  consideration,  we  ought  to  get  rid  of 
it  for  the  protection  of  human  life. 

My  friend  Marshall  has  read  Blackstone  by  the  page, 
as  if  it  had  something  to  do  with  a  fairly  enlightened 
age,  as  if  it  had  something  to  do  with  the  year  1924,  as 
if  it  had  something  to  do  with  Chicago,  with  its  boys’ 
courts  and  its  fairly  tender  protection  of  the  young. 

Now,  your  Honor,  I  shall  discuss  that  more  in  detail 
a  little  later,  and  I  only  say  it  now  because  my  friend 
Mr.  Savage— did  you  pick  him  for  his  name  or  his  ability 
or  his  learning? — because  my  friend  Mr.  Savage,  in  as 
cruel  a  speech  as  he  knew  how  to  make,  said  to  this  court 
that  we  plead  guilty  because  we  were  afraid  to  do  any¬ 
thing  else. 

Your  Honor,  that  is  true. 

It  was  not  correct  that  we  would  have  defended  these 
boys  in  this  court;  we  believe  we  have  been  fair  to  the 
public.  Anyhow,  we  have  tried,  and  we  have  tried  un¬ 
der  terribly  hard  conditions. 

We  have  said  to  the  public  and  to  this  court  that 
neither  the  parents,  nor  the  friends,  nor  the  attorneys 
would  want  these  boys  released.  That  they  are  as  they 
are.  Unfortunate  though  it  be,  it  is  true,  and  those  the 
closest  to  them  know  perfectly  well  that  they  should  not 
be  released,  and  that  they  should  be  permanently  iso¬ 
lated  from  society.  We  have  said  that;  and  we  mean 
it.  We  are  asking  this  court  to  save  their  lives,  which 
is  the  least  and  the  most  that  a  judge  can  do. 


8 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


We  did  plead  guilty  before  your  Honor  because  we 
were  afraid  to  submit  our  cause  to  a  jury.  I  would  not 
for  a  moment  deny  to  this  court  or  to  this  community 
a  realization  of  the  serious  danger  we  were  in  and  how 
perplexed  we  were  before  we  took  this  most  unusual  step. 

I  can  tell  your  Honor  why. 

I  have  found  that  years  and  experience  with  life  tem¬ 
pers  one’s  emotions  and  makes  him  more  understanding 
of  his  fellow  man. 

When  my  friend  Savage  is  my  age,  or  even  yours,  he 
will  read  his  address  to  this  court  with  horror. 

I  am  aware  that  as  one  grows  older  he  is  less  critical. 
He  is  not  so  sure.  He  is  inclined  to  make  some  allow¬ 
ance  for  his  fellow  man.  I  am  aware  that  a  court  has 
more  experience,  more  judgment  and  more  kindliness 
than  a  jury. 

Your  Honor,  it  may  be  hardly  fair  to  the  court,  I  am 
aware  that  I  have  helped  to  place  a  serious  burden  upon 
your  shoulders.  And  at  that,  I  have  always  meant  to 
be  your  friend.  But  this  was  not  an  act  of  friendship. 

I  know  perfectly  well  that  where  responsibility  is 
divided  by  twelve,  it  is  easy  to  say: 

“Away  with  him.” 

But,  your  Honor,  if  these  boys  hang,  you  must  do  it. 
There  can  be  no  division  of  responsibility  here.  You 
can  never  explain  that  the  rest  overpowered  you.  It 
must  be  by  your  deliberate,  cool,  premeditated  act,  with¬ 
out  a  chance  to  shift  responsibility. 

It  was  not  a  kindness  to  you.  We  placed  this  respon¬ 
sibility  on  your  shoulders  because  we  were  mindful  of 
the  rights  of  our  clients,  and  wre  were  mindful  of  the  un¬ 
happy  families  who  have  done  no  wrong. 

Now,  let  us  see,  your  Honor,  what  we  had  to  sustain 
us.  Of  course,  I  have  known  your  Honor  for  a  good 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


9 


many  years.  Not  intimately.  I  could  not  say  that  I 
could  even  guess  from  my  experience  what  your  Honor 
might  do,  but  I  did  know  something.  I  knew,  your 
Honor,  that  ninety  unfortunate  human  beings  had  been 
hanged  by  the  neck  until  dead  in  the  city  of  Chicago  in 
our  history.  We  would  not  have  civilization  except  for 
those  ninety  that  were  hanged,  and  if  we  cannot  make 
it  ninety-two  v/e  will  have  to  shut  up  shop.  Some  ninety 
human  beings  have  been  hanged  in  the  history  of  Chi¬ 
cago,  and  of  those  only  four  have  been  hanged  on  the 
plea  of  guilty, — one  out  of  twenty-two. 

I  know  that  in  the  last  ten  years  four  hundred  and 
fifty  people  have  been  indicted  for  murder  in  the  city 
of  Chicago  and  have  plead  guilty.  Four  hundred  and 
fifty  have  pleaded  guilty  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  and 
only  one  has  been  hanged ! — And  my  friend  who  is  prose¬ 
cuting  this  case  deserves  the  honor  of  that  hanging  while 
he  was  on  the  bench.  But  his  victim  was  forty  years 
old. 

Your  Honor  will  never  thank  me  for  unloading  this 
responsibility  upon  you,  but  you  know  that  I  would  have 
been  untrue  to  my  clients  if  I  had  not  concluded  to  take 
this  chance  before  a  court,  instead  of  submitting  it  to 
a  poisoned  jury  in  the  city  of  Chicago.  I  did  it  know¬ 
ing  that  it  would  be  an  unheard  of  thing  for  any  court, 
no  matter  who,  to  sentence  these  boys  to  death. 

And,  so  far  as  that  goes,  Mr.  Savage  is  right.  I  hope, 
your  Honor,  that  I  have  made  no  mistake. 

I  could  have  wished  that  the  State’s  Attorney’s  office 
had  met  this  case  with  the  same  fairness  that  we  have 
met  it. 

It  has  seemed  to  me  as  I  have  listened  to  this  case  five 
or  six  times  repeating  the  story  of  this  tragedy,  spending 
days  to  urge  your  Honor  that  a  condition  of  mind  could 


io 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


not  mitigate,  or  that  tender  years  could  not  mitigate,  it 
has  seemed  to  me  that  it  ought  to  be  beneath  the  repre¬ 
sentative  of  a  proud  state  like  this  to  invoke  the  dark 
and  cruel  and  bloody  past  to  affect  this  court  and  com¬ 
pass  these  boys’  death. 

Your  Honor,  I  must  for  a  moment  criticize  the  argu¬ 
ments  that  have  preceded  me.  I  can  read  to  you  in  a 
minute  my  friend  Marshall’s  argument,  barring  Black- 
stone.  But  the  rest  of  his  arguments  and  the  rest  of 
Brother  Savage’s  argument,  I  can  sum  up  in  a  minute: 
Cruel ;  dastardly ;  premeditated ;  fiendish;  abandoned  and 
malignant  heart ; — sounds  like  a  cancer — cowardly , — 
cold-blooded! 

Now  that  is  what  I  have  listened  to  for  three  days 
against  two  minors,  two  children,  who  have  no  right  to 
sign  a  note  or  make  a  deed. 

Cowardly*? 

Well,  I  don’t  know.  Let  me  tell  you  something  that 
I  think  is  cowardly,  whether  their  acts  were  or  not.  Here 
is  Dickie  Loeb,  and  Nathan  Leopold,  and  the  State  ob¬ 
jects  to  anybody  calling  one  “Dickie”  and  the  other 
“Babe”  although  everybody  does,  but  they  think  they 
can  hang  them  easier  if  their  names  are  Richard  and 
Nathan,  so,  we  will  call  them  Richard  and  Nathan. 

Eighteen  and  nineteen  years  old  at  the  time  of  the 
homicide. 

Here  are  three  officers  watching  them.  They  are  led 
out  and  in  this  jail  and  across  the  bridge  waiting  to  be 
hanged.  Not  a  chance  to  get  away.  Handcuffed  when 
they  get  out  of  this  room.  Not  a  chance.  Penned  like 
rats  in  a  trap;  and  for  a  lawyer  with  physiological  elo¬ 
quence  to  wave  his  fist  in  front  of  their  faces  and  shout 
“Cowardly!”  does  not  appeal  to  me  as  a  brave  act.  It 
does  not  commend  itself  to  me  as  a  proper  thing  for  a 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


11 


State’s  Attorney  or  his  assistant;  for  even  defendants 
not  yet  hanged  have  some  rights  with  an  official.  Cold¬ 
blooded?  But  I  don’t  know,  your  Honor.  I  will  dis¬ 
cuss  that  a  little  later, — whether  it  was  cold-blooded  or 
not. 

Cold-blooded?  Why?  Because  they  planned,  and 
schemed,  and  arranged,  and  fixed? 

Yes.  But  here  are  the  officers  of  justice,  so-called, 
with  all  the  power  of  the  State,  with  all  the  influence 
of  the  press,  to  fan  this  community  into  a  frenzy  of 
hate;  with  all  of  that,  who  for  months  have  been  plan¬ 
ning  and  scheming,  and  contriving,  and  working  to  take 
these  two  boys’  lives. 

You  may  stand  them  up  on  the  trap-door  of  the  scaf¬ 
fold,  and  choke  them  to  death,  but  that  act  will  be  in¬ 
finitely  more  cold-blooded  whether  justified  or  not,  than 
any  act  that  these  boys  have  committed  or  can  commit. 

Cold-blooded ! 

Let  the  State,  who  is  so  anxious  to  take  these  boys’ 
lives,  set  an  example  in  consideration,  kindheartedness 
and  tenderness  before  they  call  my  clients  cold-blooded. 

I  have  heard  this  crime  described;  this  most  distress¬ 
ing  and  unfortunate  homicide,  as  I  would  call  it; — this 
cold-blooded  murder,  as  the  State  would  call  it. 

I  call  it  a  homicide  particularly  distressing  because  I 
am  defending. 

They  call  it  a  cold-blooded  murder  because  they  want 
to  take  human  lives. 

Call  it  what  you  will. 

I  have  heard  this  case  talked  of,  and  I  have  heard 
these  lawyers  say  that  this  is  the  coldest-blooded  murder 
that  the  civilized  world  ever  has  known.  I  don’t  know 
what  they  include  in  the  civilized  world.  I  suppose 
Illinois.  Although  they  talk  as  if  they  did  not.  But 


12 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


we  will  assume  Illinois.  This  is  the  most  cold-blooded 
murder,  says  the  State,  that  ever  occurred. 

Now,  your  Honor,  I  have  been  practicing  law  a  good 
deal  longer  than  I  should  have,  anyhow,  for  forty-five 
or  forty-six  years,  and  during  a  part  of  that  time  I  have 
tried  a  good  many  criminal  cases,  always  defending.  It 
does  not  mean  that  I  am  better.  It  probably  means  that 
I  am  more  squeamish  than  the  other  fellows.  It  means 
neither  that  I  am  better  nor  worse.  It  means  the  way 
I  am  made.  I  can  not  help  it. 

I  have  never  yet  tried  a  case  where  the  state’s  attor¬ 
ney  did  not  say  that  it  was  the  most  cold-blooded,  inex¬ 
cusable,  premeditated  case  that  ever  occurred.  If  it  was 
murder,  there  never  was  such  a  murder.  If  it  was  rob¬ 
bery,  there  never  was  such  a  robbery.  If  it  was  a  con¬ 
spiracy,  it  was  the  most  terrible  conspiracy  that  ever  hap¬ 
pened  since  the  star-chamber  passed  into  oblivion.  If 
it  was  larceny,  there  never  was  such  a  larceny. 

Now,  I  am  speaking  moderately.  All  of  them  are 
the  worst.  Why?  Well,  it  adds  to  the  credit  of  the 
State’s  Attorney  to  be  connected  with  a  big  case.  That 
is  one  thing.  They  can  say, — 

“Well,  I  tried  the  most  cold-blooded  murder  case  that 
ever  was  tried,  and  I  convicted  them,  and  they  are  dead.” 

“I  tried  the  worst  forgery  case  that  ever  was  tried, 
and  I  won  that.  I  never  did  anything  that  was  not  big.” 

Lawyers  are  apt  to  say  that. 

And  then  there  is  another  thing,  your  Honor:  Of 
course,  I  generally  try  cases  to  juries,  and  these  adjec¬ 
tives  always  go  well  with  juries;  bloody,  cold-blooded, 
despicable,  cowardly,  dastardly,  cruel,  heartless, — the 
whole  litany  of  the  State’s  Attorney’s  office  generally 
goes  well  with  a  jury.  The  twelve  jurors,  being  good 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  13 

themselves,  think  it  is  a  tribute  to  their  virtue  if  they 
follow  the  litany  of  the  State’s  Attorney. 

I  suppose  it  may  have  some  effect  with  the  court;  I 
do  not  know.  Anyway,  those  are  the  chances  we  take 
when  we  do  our  best  to  save  life  and  reputation. 

“Here,  your  clients  have  pleaded  guilty  to  the  most 
cold-blooded  murder  that  ever  took  place  in  the  history 
of  the  world.  And  how  does  a  judge  dare  to  refuse  to 
hang  by  the  neck  until  dead  two  cowardly  ruffians  who 
committed  the  coldest  blooded  murder  in  the  history  of 
the  world?” 

That  is  a  good  talking  point. 

I  want  to  give  some  attention  to  this  cold-blooded 
murder,  your  Honor. 

Was  it  a  cold-blooded  murder? 

Was  it  the  most  terrible  murder  that  ever  happened 
in  the  State  of  Illinois? 

Was  it  the  most  dastardly  act  in  the  annals  of  crime? 

No. 

I  insist,  your  Honor,  that  under  all  fair  rules  and 
measurements,  this  was  one  of  the  least  dastardly  and 
cruel  of  any  that  I  have  known  anything  about. 

Now,  let  us  see  how  we  should  measure  it. 

They  say  that  this  was  a  cruel  murder,  the  worst  that 
ever  happened.  I  say  that  very  few  murders  ever  oc¬ 
curred  that  were  as  free  from  cruelty  as  this. 

There  ought  to  be  some  rule  to  determine  whether  a 
murder  is  exceedingly  cruel  or  not. 

Of  course,  your  Honor,  I  admit  that  I  hate  killing, 
and  I  hate  it  no  matter  how  it  is  done, — whether  you 
shoot  a  man  through  the  heart,  or  cut  his  head  off  with 
an  axe,  or  kill  him  with  a  chisel  or  tie  a  rope  around  his 
neck,  I  hate  it.  I  always  did.  I  always  shall. 

But,  there  are  degrees,  and  if  I  might  be  permitted  to 


14  PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 

make  my  own  rules  I  would  say  that  if  I  were  estimating 
what  was  the  most  cruel  murder,  I  might  first  consider 
the  sufferings  of  the  victim. 

Now,  probably  the  State  would  not  take  that  rule. 
They  would  say  the  one  that  had  the  most  attention  in 
the  newspapers.  In  that  way  they  have  got  me  beaten 
at  the  start. 

But  I  would  say  the  first  thing  to  consider  is  the  de¬ 
gree  of  pain  to  the  victim. 

Poor  little  Bobby  Franks  suffered  very  little.  There 
is  no  excuse  for  his  killing.  If  to  hang  these  two  boys 
would  bring  him  back  to  life,  I  would  say  let  them  go, 
and  I  believe  their  parents  would  say  so,  too.  But : 

The  moving  finger  writes,  and  having  writ, 
Moves  on;  nor  all  your  piety  nor  wit 
Shall  lure  it  back  to  cancel  half  a  line, 

Nor  all  your  tears  wash  out  a  word  of  it. 

Robert  Franks  is  dead,  and  we  cannot  call  him  back 
to  life.  It  was  all  over  in  fifteen  minutes  after  he  got 
into  the  car,  and  he  probably  never  knew  it  or  thought 
of  it.  That  does  not  justify  it.  It  is  the  last  thing  I 
would  do.  I  am  sorry  for  the  poor  boy.  I  am  sorry  for 
his  parents.  But,  it  is  done. 

Of  course  I  cannot  say  with  the  certainty  of  Mr.  Sav¬ 
age  that  he  would  have  been  a  great  man  if  he  had 
grown  up.  At  fourteen  years  of  age  I  don’t  know 
whether  he  would  or  not.  Savage,  I  suppose,  is  a  mind 
reader,  and  he  says  that  he  would.  He  has  a  phantasy, 
which  is  hanging.  So  far  as  the  cruelty  to  the  victim 
is  concerned,  you  can  scarce  imagine  one  less  cruel. 

Now,  what  else  would  stamp  a  murder  as  being  a  most 
atrocious  crime? 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  15 

First,  I  put  the  victim,  who  ought  not  to  suffer;  and 
next,  I  would  put  the  attitude  of  those  who  kill. 

What  was  the  attitude  of  these  two  boys? 

It  may  be  that  the  State’s  Attorney  would  think  that 
it  was  particularly  cruel  to  the  victim  because  he  was 
a  boy. 

Well,  my  clients  are  boys,  too,  and  if  it  would  make 
more  serious  the  offense  to  kill  a  boy,  it  should  make  less 
serious  the  offense  of  the  boys  who  did  the  killing. 

What  was  there  in  the  conduct  of  these  two  boys 
which  showed  a  wicked,  malignant,  and  abandoned  heart 
beyond  that  of  anybody  else,  who  ever  lived?  Your 
Honor,  it  is  simply  foolish. 

Everybody  who  thinks  knows  the  purpose  of  this. 
Counsel  knows  that  under  all  the  rules  of  the  courts  they 
have  not  the  slightest  right  to  ask  this  court  to  take  life. 
Yet  they  urge  it  upon  this  court  by  falsely  characteriz¬ 
ing  this  as  being  the  crudest  act  that  ever  occurred. 
What  about  these  two  boys, — the  second  thing  that 
would  settle  whether  it  was  cruel  or  not? 

Mr.  Marshall  read  case  after  case  of  murders  and  he 
said:  “Why,  those  cases  don’t  compare  with  yours. 
Yours  is  worse.”  Worse,  why?  What  were  those  cases? 
Most  of  his  cases  were  robbery  cases, — where  a  man  went 
out  with  a  gun  to  take  a  person’s  money  and  shot  him 
down.  Some  of  them  were  cases  where  a  man  killed1 
from  spite  and  hatred  and  malice.  Some  of  them  were 
cases  of  special  atrocities,  mostly  connected  with  money. 
A  man  kills  someone  to  get  money,  he  kills  someone 
through  hatred.  What  is  this  case? 

This  is  a  senseless,  useless,  purposeless,  motiveless  act 
of  two  boys.  Now,  let  me  see  if  I  can  prove  it.  There 
was  not  a  particle  of  hate,  there  was  not  a  grain  of 


l6  PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROVV  IN  DEFENSE 

malice,  there  was  no  opportunity  to  be  cruel  except  as 
death  is  cruel, — and  death  is  cruel. 

There  was  absolutely  no  purpose  in  it  all,  no  reason 
in  it  all,  and  no  motive  for  it  all. 

Now,  let  me  see  whether  I  am  right  or  not. 

I  mean  to  argue  this  thoroughly,  and  it  seems  to  me 
that  there  is  no  chance  for  a  court  to  hesitate  upon  the 
facts  in  this  case. 

I  want  to  try  to  do  it  honestly  and  plainly,  and  with¬ 
out  any  attempt  at  frills  or  oratory;  to  state  the  facts  of 
this  case  just  as  the  facts  exist,  and  nothing  else. 

What  does  the  State  say  about  it? 

In  order  to  make  this  the  most  cruel  thing  that  ever 
happened,  of  course  they  must  have  a  motive.  And 
what,  do  they  say,  was  the  motive? 

Your  Honor,  if  there  was  ever  anything  so  foolish,  so 
utterly  futile  as  the  motive  claimed  in  this  case,  then  I 
have  never  listened  to  it. 

What  did  Tom  Marshall  say? 

What  did  Joe  Savage  say? 

“The  motive  was  to  get  ten  thousand  dollars,”  say 
they. 

These  two  boys,  neither  one  of  whom  needed  a  cent, 
scions  of  wealthy  people,  killed  this  little  inoffensive  boy 
to  get  ten  thousand  dollars? 

First  let  us  call  your  attention  to  the  opening  state¬ 
ment  of  Judge  Crowe,  where  we  heard  for  the  first  time 
the  full  details  of  this  homicide  after  a  plea  of  guilty. 

All  right.  He  said  these  two  young  men  were  heavy 
gamblers,  and  they  needed  the  money  to  pay  gambling 
debts, — or  on  account  of  gambling. 

Now,  your  Honor,  he  said  this  was  atrocious,  most 
atrocious,  and  they  did  it  to  get  the  money  because  they 
were  gamblers  and  needed  it  to  pay  gambling  debts. 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


17 


What  did  he  prove? 

He  put  on  one  witness,  and  one  only,  who  had  played 
bridge  with  both  of  them  in  college,  and  he  said  they 
played  for  five  cents  a  point. 

Now,  I  trust  your  Honor  knows  better  than  I  do  how 
much  of  a  game  that  would  be.  At  poker  I  might  guess, 
but  I  know  little  about  bridge. 

But  what  else? 

He  said  that  in  a  game  one  of  them  lost  ninety  dol¬ 
lars  to  the  other  one. 

They  were  playing  against  each  other,  and  one  of 
them  lost  ninety  dollars? 

Ninety  dollars! 

Their  joint  money  was  just  the  same;  and  there  is  not 
another  word  of  evidence  in  this  case  to  sustain  the  state¬ 
ment  of  Mr.  Crowe,  who  pleads  to  hang  these  boys. 
Your  Honor,  is  it  not  trifling? 

It  would  be  trifling,  excepting,  your  Honor,  that  we 
are  dealing  in  human  life.  And  we  are  dealing  in  more 
than  that;  we  are  dealing  in  the  future  fate  of  two  fam¬ 
ilies.  We  are  talking  of  placing  a  blot  upon  the 
escutcheon  of  two  houses  that  do  not  deserve  it  for 
nothing.  And  all  that  they  can  get  out  of  their  imagin¬ 
ation  is  that  there  was  a  game  of  bridge  and  one  lost 
ninety  dollars  to  the  other,  and  therefore  they  went  out 
and  committed  murder. 

What  would  I  get  if  on  the  part  of  the  defense  we 
should  resort  to  a  thing  like  that?  Could  I  expect  any¬ 
one  to  have  the  slightest  confidence  in  anything  we  have 
said?  Your  Honor  knows  that  it  is  utterly  absurd. 

The  evidence  was  absolutely  worthless.  The  state¬ 
ment  was  made  out  of  whole  cloth,  and  Mr.  Crowe  felt 
like  that  policeman  who  came  in  here  and  perjured  him¬ 
self,  as  I  will  show  you  later  on,  who  said  that  when 


l8  PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 

he  was  talking  with  Nathan  Leopold,  Jr.,  he  told  him 
the  public  were  not  satisfied  with  the  motive. 

I  wonder  if  the  public  is  satisfied  with  the  motive? 
If  there  is  any  person  in  Chicago  who  under  the  evi¬ 
dence  in  this  case  would  believe  that  this  was  the  motive, 
then  he  is  stupid.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say  for  him; — < 
just  plain  stupid. 

But  let  us  go  further  than  that.  Who  were  these  two 
boys?  And  how  did  it  happen? 

On  a  certain  day  they  killed  poor  little  Robert  Franks. 
I  will  not  go  over  the  paraphernalia,  the  letter  demand¬ 
ing  money,  the  ransom,  because  I  will  discuss  that  later 
in  another  connection.  But  they  killed  him.  These  two 
boys.  They  were  not  to  get  ten  thousand  dollars;  they 
were  to  get  five  thousand  dollars  if  it  worked;  that  is, 
five  thousand  dollars  each.  Neither  one  could  get  more 
than  five,  and  either  one  was  risking  his  neck  in  the  job. 
So  each  one  of  my  clients  was  risking  his  neck  for  five 
thousand  dollars,  if  it  had  anything  to  do  with  it,  which 
it  did  not. 

Did  they  need  the  money? 

Why,  at  this  very  time,  and  a  few  months  before, 
Dickie  Loeb  had  three  thousand  dollars  checking  account 
in  the  bank.  Your  Honor,  I  would  be  ashamed  to  talk 
about  this  except  that  in  all  apparent  seriousness  they 
are  asking  to  kill  these  two  boys  on  the  strength  of  this 
flimsy  foolishness. 

At  that  time  Richard  Loeb  had  a  three  thousand  dol¬ 
lar  checking  account  in  the  bank.  He  had  three  Liberty 
Bonds,  one  of  which  was  past  due,  and  the  interest  on 
each  of  them  had  not  been  collected  for  three  years.  I 
said,  had  not  been  collected;  not  a  penny’s  interest  had 
been  collected, — and  the  coupons  were  there  for  three 
years.  And  yet  they  would  ask  to  hang  him  on  the  theory 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  \Q 

that  he  committed  this  murder  because  he  needed  money, 
and  for  money. 

In  addition  to  that  we  brought  his  father’s  private 
secretary  here,  who  swears  that  whenever  he  asked  for 
it,  he  got  a  check,  without  ever  consulting  the  father. 
She  had  an  open  order  to  give  him  a  check  whenever  he 
wanted  it,  and  she  had  sent  him  a  check  in  February, 
and  he  had  lost  it  and  had  not  cashed  it.  So  he  got 
another  in  March. 

Your  Honor,  how  far  would  this  kind  of  an  excuse 
go  on  the  part  of  the  defense?  Anything  is  good  enough 
to  dump  into  a  pot  where  the  public  are  clamouring,  and 
where  the  stage  is  set  and  where  loud-voiced  young  at¬ 
torneys  are  talking  about  the  sanctity  of  the  law,  which 
means  killing  people;  anything  is  enough  to  justify  a 
demand  for  hanging. 

How  about  Leopold? 

Leopold  was  in  regular  receipt  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty-five  dollars  a  month;  he  had  an  automobile;  paid 
nothing  for  board  and  clothes,  and  expenses;  he  got 
money  whenever  he  wanted  it,  and  he  had  arranged  to 
go  to  Europe  and  had  bought  his  ticket  and  was  going 
to  leave  about  the  time  he  was  arrested  in  this  case. 

He  passed  his  examination  for  the  Harvard  Law 
School,  and  was  going  to  take  a  short  trip  to  Europe 
before  it  was  time  for  him  to  attend  the  fall  term.  His 
ticket  had  been  bought,  and  his  father  was  to  give  him 
three  thousand  dollars  to  make  the  trip. 

Your  Honor,  jurors  sometimes  make  mistakes,  and 
courts  do,  too.  If  on  this  evidence  the  court  is  to  con¬ 
strue  a  motive  out  of  this  case,  then  I  insist  that  human 
liberty  is  not  safe  and  human  life  is  not  safe.  A  motive 
could  be  construed  out  of  any  set  of  circumstances  and 
facts  that  might  be  imagined. 


20 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSB 


In  addition  to  that,  these  boys’  families  were  ex¬ 
tremely  wealthy.  The  boys  had  been  reared  in  luxury, 
they  had  never  been  denied  anything;  no  want  or  desire 
left  unsatisfied;  no  debts;  no  need  of  money;  nothing. 

And  yet  they  murdered  a  little  boy,  against  whom 
they  had  nothing  in  the  world,  without  malice,  without 
reason,  to  get  five  thousand  dollars  each.  All  right.  All 
right,  your  Honor,  if  the  court  believes  it,  if  anyone  be¬ 
lieves  it,  I  can’t  help  it. 

That  is  what  this  case  rests  on.  It  could  not  stand  up 
a  minute  without  motive.  Without  it,  it  was  the  sense¬ 
less  act  of  immature  and  diseased  children,  as  it  was;  a 
senseless  act  of  children,  wandering  around  in  the  dark 
and  moved  by  some  emotion,  that  we  still  perhaps  have 
not  the  knowledge  or  the  insight  into  life  to  thoroughly 
understand. 

Now,  let  me  go  on  with  it.  What  else  do  they  claim! 

I  want  to  say  to  your  Honor  that  you  may  cut  out 
every  expert  in  this  case,  you  may  cut  out  every  lay  wit¬ 
ness  in  this  case,  you  may  decide  this  case  upon  the  facts 
as  they  appear  here  alone;  and  there  is  no  sort  of  ques¬ 
tion  but  what  these  boys  were  mentally  diseased. 

I  do  not  know,  but  I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any 
man  who  knows  this  case,  who  does  not  know  that  it 
can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the  theory  of  the  mental 
disease  of  these  two  lads. 

First,  I  want  to  refer  to  something  else.  Mr.  Mar¬ 
shall  argues  to  this  court  that  you  can  do  no  such  thing 
as  to  grant  us  the  almost  divine  favor  of  saving  the  lives 
of  two  boys,  that  it  is  against  the  law,  that  the  penalty 
for  murder  is  death;  and  this  court,  who,  in  the  fiction 
of  the  lawyers  and  the  judges,  forgets  that  he  is  a  human 
being  and  becomes  a  court,  pulseless,  emotionless,  devoid 
of  those  common  feelings  which  alone  make  men;  that 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


21 


this  court  as  a  human  machine  must  hang  them  because 
they  killed. 

Now,  let  us  see.  I  do  not  need  to  ask  mercy  from  this 
court  for  these  clients,  nor  for  anybody  else,  nor  for  my¬ 
self;  though  I  have  never  yet  found  a  person  who  did 
not  need  it. 

But  I  do  not  ask  mercy  for  these  boys.  Your  Honor 
may  be  as  strict  in  the  enforcement  of  the  law  as  you 
please  and  you  cannot  hang  these  boys.  You  can  only 
hang  them  because  back  of  the  law  and  back  of  justice 
and  back  of  the  common  instincts  of  man,  and  back  of 
the  human  feeling  for  the  young,  is  the  hoarse  voice  of 
the  mob  which  says,  “Kill/5  I  need  ask  nothing.  What 
is  the  law  of  Illinois? 

If  one  is  found  guilty  of  murder  in  the  first  degree  by 
a  jury,  or  if  he  pleads  guilty  before  a  court,  the  court  or 
jury  may  do  one  of  three  things:  he  may  hang;  he  may 
imprison  for  life;  or,  he  may  imprison  for  a  term  of  not 
less  than  fourteen  years.  Now,  why  is  that  the  law? 

Does  it  follow  from  the  statute  that  a  court  is  bound 
to  ascertain  the  impossible,  and  must  necessarily  measure 
the  degrees  of  guilt?  Not  at  all.  He  may  not  be  able 
to  do  it.  A  court  may  act  from  any  reason  or  from  no 
reason.  A  jury  may  fix  any  one  of  these  penalties  as 
they  see  fit.  Why  was  this  law  passed?  Undoubtedly 
in  recognition  of  the  growing  feeling  in  all  the  forward- 
thinking  people  of  the  United  States  against  capital  pun¬ 
ishment,  Undoubtedly,  through  the  deep  reluctance  of 
courts  and  juries  to  take  human  life. 

Without  any  reason  whatever,  without  any  facts  what¬ 
ever,  your  Honor  must  make  the  choice,  and  you  have 
the  same  right  to  make  one  choice  as  another,  no  matter 
what  Mr.  Justice  Blackstone  says.  It  is  your  Honor’s 
province;  you  may  do  it,  and  I  need  ask  nothing  in  order 


22 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


to  have  you  do  it.  There  is  the  statute.  But  there  is 
more  than  that  in  this  case. 

We  have  sought  to  tell  this  court  why  he  should  not 
hang  these  boys.  We  have  sought  to  tell  this  court*  and 
to  make  this  court  believe,  that  they  were  diseased  of 
mind,  and  that  they  were  of  tender  age.  However,  be¬ 
fore  I  discuss  that,  I  ought  to  say  another  word  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  question  of  motive  in  this  case.  If  there  was 
no  motive,  except  the  senseless  act  of  immature  boys, 
then  of  course  there  is  taken  from  this  case  all  of  the 
feeling  of  deep  guilt  upon  the  part  of  these  defendants. 

There  was  neither  cruelty  to  the  deceased,  beyond  tak¬ 
ing  his  life — which  is  much — nor  was  there  any  depth 
of  guilt  and  depravity  on  the  part  of  the  defendants,  for 
it  was  a  truly  motiveless  act,  without  the  slightest  feel¬ 
ing  of  hatred  or  revenge,  done  by  a  couple  of  children 
for  no  sane  reason. 

But,  your  Honor,  we  have  gone  further  than  that,  and 
we  have  sought  to  show  you,  as  I  think  we  have,  the  con¬ 
dition  of  these  boys’  minds.  Of  course  it  is  not  an  easy 
task  to  find  out  the  condition  of  another  person’s  mind. 
These  experts  in  the  main  have  told  you  that  it  is  im¬ 
possible  to  ascertain  what  the  mind  is,  to  start  with;  or 
to  tell  how  it  acts. 

I  will  refer  later,  your  Honor,  to  the  purpose  of  ask¬ 
ing  for  the  ransom  which  has  been  clearly  testified  to 
here.  I  simply,  so  far,  wish  to  show  that  the  money  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  homicide. 

The  inadequacy  of  it  all,  the  risk  taken  for  nothing, 
the  utter  lack  of  need,  the  senselessness  of  it  all,  shows 
that  it  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  this  crime,  and 
that  the  reason  is  the  reason  that  has  been  given  by  the 
boys. 

Now,  I  was  about  to  say  that  it  needs  no  expert,  it 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


23 


needs  nothing  but  a  bare  recitation  of  these  facts,  and  a 
fair  consideration  of  them,  to  convince  any  human  being 
that  this  act  was  the  act  of  diseased  brains. 

The  state,  in  their  usual  effort  to  magnify  and  distort, 
to  force  every  construction  against  the  defendants,  have 
spoken  about  this  act  having  its  inception  in  their  going 
to  Ann  Arbor  to  steal  a  typewriter  six  months  before. 

This  is  on  a  plane  par  with  their  statement  that  this 
crime  was  committed  for  the  purpose  of  getting  ten  thou¬ 
sand  dollars. 

What  is  the  evidence? 

The  getting  of  the  typewriter  in  Ann  Arbor  had  no¬ 
thing  to  do  with  this  offense;  not  the  slightest.  The 
evidence  in  this  case  shows  that  they  went  to  Ann  Arbor 
on  the  12th  day  of  November.  This  act  was  committed 
on  the  21st  day  of  May. 

They  went  to  Ann  Arbor  one  night,  after  the  football 
game,  drove  through  in  the  night  time.  Nobody  knew 
they  were  going  and  nobody  knew  they  had  been  there. 
They  knew  the  next  morning  that  somebody  had  been 
there,  because  they  missed  things. 

They  went  there,  under  the  evidence  in  this  case, 
purely  to  steal  something  from  the  fraternity  house.  I 
will  explain  the  reason  for  that  further  on.  Among  the 
rest  of  the  things  that  they  took  was  the  typewriter  on 
which  these  ransom  letters  were  written. 

And  yet  the  State  with  its  fertile  imagination  says ; 

“Aha,  these  wonderful  planners.”  Who  Dr.  Krohn 
has  told  you  showed  such  great  knowledge,  such  active 
brain,  such  consistent  action,  such  plans  and  such  schemes 
that  they  must  be  sane.  And  yet  a  three-year-old  child 
would  not  have  done  any  of  it. 

These  wonderful  planners  foresaw  that  six  months 
later  they  were  going  to  write  a  ransom  letter  to  some- 


24 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


body,  and  they  were  going  to  kill  a  boy;  nobody  knew 
who,  or  when,  or  where,  or  how. 

And  in  asking  for  a  ransom  they  would  need  a  machine 
to  write  on,  and  so  that  they  could  not  be  detected  they 
went  to  Ann  Arbor  and  stole  one. 

There  is  some  evidence  somewhere  in  this  record  that 
on  their  way  home  from  Ann  Arbor  they  began  to  dis¬ 
cuss  this  question  of  committing  a  perfect  crime,  which 
had  been  their  phantasy  for  months. 

The  typewriter  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it, 
but  to  make  it  seem  that  they  were  schemers  and  plan¬ 
ners,  that  they  knew  how  to  think  and  how  to  act,  it  is 
argued  that  they  went  all  the  way  to  Ann  Arbor  in  the 
night  time  to  steal  a  typewriter,  instead  of  buying  one 
here,  or  stealing  one  here,  or  getting  one  here,  or  using 
their  own,  or  advertising  for  one,  or  securing  one  in  any 
one  of  a  hundred  ways  of  getting  a  typewriter  here. 

Of  course  it  is  impossible  on  the  face  of  it,  but  let  us 
see  what  the  evidence  is.  They  did  bring  a  typewriter 
from  Ann  Arbor  and  on  that  typewriter  they  wrote  this 
so-called  ransom  letter,  and  after  the  boy  had  been  killed 
they  threw  the  typewriter  into  the  lagoon,  after  twisting 
off  the  letters. 

Why  did  they  twist  off  the  letters? 

Well,  I  suppose  anybody  knows  why.  Because  one 
who  is  fairly  familiar  with  a  typewriter  knows  that  you 
can  always  detect  the  writing  on  almost  every  typewriter. 
There  will  be  imperfect  letters,  imperfect  tracking  and 
imperfect  this,  that  and  the  other,  by  which  detection  is 
accomplished,  and  probably  they  knew  it. 

But  mark  this:  Leopold  kept  this  typewriter  in  his 
house  for  six  months.  According  to  the  testimony  of  the 
maid,  he  had  written  many  letters  on  it.  According  to 
the  testimony  of  his  tutors  he  had  written  the  dope  sheets 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


25 


for  his  law  examination  on  it;  numbers  of  them.  These 
were  still  in  existence.  The  State’s  Attorney  got  them; 
the  typewriter  could  be  identified  without  the  machine 
at  all.  It  was  identified  without  the  machine;  all  that 
was  needed  was  to  show  that  the  same  machine  that 
wrote  the  ransom  letter  wrote  the  dope  sheets  and  wrote 
the  other  letters. 

No  effort  was  made  to  conceal  it  through  all  these 
months.  All  the  boys’  friends  knew  it;  the  maid  knew 
it,  everybody  in  the  house  knew  it;  letters  were  sent  out 
broadcast  and  the  dope  sheets  were  made  from  it  for  the 
examination.  Were  they  trying  to  conceal  it?  Did  they 
take  a  drive  in  the  night  time  to  Ann  Arbor  to  get  it, 
together  with  other  stuff  so  that  they  might  be  tracked, 
or  did  they  just  get  it  with  other  stuff  without  any 
thought  of  this  homicide  that  happened  six  months  later? 

The  State  says,  in  order  to  make  out  the  wonderful 
mental  processes  of  these  two  boys,  that  they  fixed  up  a 
plan  to  go  to  Ann  Arbor  to  get  this  machine,  and  yet 
when  they  got  ready  to  do  this  act,  they  went  down  the 
street  a  few  doors  from  their  house  and  bought  a  rope; 
they  went  around  the  corner  and  bought  acid ;  then  went 
somewhere  else  nearby  and  bought  tape ;  they  went  down 
to  the  hotel  and  rented  a  room,  and  then  gave  it  up,  and 
went  to  another  hotel,  and  rented  one  there.  And  then 
Dick  Loeb  went  to  the  hotel  room,  took  a  valise  contain¬ 
ing  his  library  card  and  some  books  from  the  library, 
left  it  two  days  in  the  room,  until  the  hotel  took  the 
valise  and  took  the  books.  Then  he  went  to  another 
hotel  and  rented  another  room.  He  might  just  as  well 
have  sent  his  card  with  the  ransom  letter. 

They  went  to  the  “Rent-a-Car”  place  and  hired  a  car. 
All  this  clumsy  machinery  was  gone  through,  without 
intelligence  or  method  or  rational  thought.  I  submit. 


26 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


your  Honor,  that  no  one,  unless  he  had  an  afflicted  mind, 
together  with  youth,  could  possibly  have  done  it. 

But  let’s  get  to  something  stronger  than  that.  Were 
these  boys  in  their  right  minds?  Here  were  two  boys 
with  good  intellect,  one  eighteen  and  one  nineteen.  They 
had  all  the  prospects  that  life  could  hold  out  for  any  of 
the  young;  one  a  graduate  of  Chicago  and  another  of 
Ann  Arbor;  one  who  had  passed  his  examination  for  the 
Harvard  Law  School  and  was  about  to  take  a  trip  in 
Europe, — another  who  had  passed  at  Ann  Arbor,  the 
youngest  in  his  class,  with  three  thousand  dollars  in  the 
bank.  Boys  who  never  knew  what  it  was  to  want  a 
dollar;  boys  who  could  reach  any  position  that  was  given 
to  boys  of  that  kind  to  reach;  boys  of  distinguished  and 
honorable  families,  families  of  wealth  and  position,  with 
all  the  world  before  them.  And  they  gave  it  all  up  for 
nothing,  for  nothing!  They  took  a  little  companion  of 
one  of  them,  on  a  crowded  street,  and  killed  him,  for 
nothing,  and  sacrificed  everything  that  could  be  of  value 
in  human  life  upon  the  crazy  scheme  of  a  couple  of  im¬ 
mature  lads. 

Now,  your  Honor,  you  have  been  a  boy;  I  have  been 
a  boy.  And  we  have  known  other  boys.  The  best  way 
to  understand  somebody  else  is  to  put  yourself  in  his 
place. 

Is  it  within  the  realm  of  your  imagination  that  a  boy 
who  was  right,  with  all  the  prospects  of  life  before  him, 
who  could  choose  what  he  wanted,  without  the  slightest 
reason  in  the  world  would  lure  a  young  companion  to  his 
death,  and  take  his  place  in  the  shadow  of  the  gallows? 

I  do  not  care  what  Dr.  Krohn  may  say;  he  is  liable 
to  say  anything,  except  to  tell  the  truth,  and  he  is  not 
liable  to  do  that.  No  one  who  has  the  process  of  reason- 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  2J, 

ing  could  doubt  that  a  boy  who  would  do  that  is  not 
right. 

How  insane  they  are  I  care  not,  whether  medically  or 
legally.  They  did  not  reason;  they  could  not  reason; 
they  committed  the  most  foolish,  most  unprovoked,  most 
purposeless,  most  causeless  act  that  any  two  boys  ever 
committed,  and  they  put  themselves  where  the  rope  is 
dangling  above  their  heads. 

There  are  not  physicians  enough  in  the  world  to  con¬ 
vince  any  thoughtful,  fair-minded  man  that  these  boys 
are  right.  Was  their  act  one  of  deliberation,  of  intellect, 
or  were  they  driven  by  some  force  such  as  Dr.  White 
and  Dr.  Glueck  and  Dr.  Healy  have  told  this  court? 

There  are  only  two  theories ;  one  is  that  their  diseased 
brains  drove  them  to  it;  the  other  is  the  old  theory  of 
possession  by  devils,  and  my  friend  Marshall  could  have 
read  you  books  on  that,  too,  but  it  has  been  pretty  well 
given  up  in  Illinois. 

That  they  were  intelligent  and  sane  and  sound  and 
reasoning  is  unthinkable.  Let  me  call  your  Honor’s 
attention  to  another  thing. 

Why  did  they  kill  little  Bobby  Franks? 

Not  for  money,  not  for  spite;  not  for  hate.  They 
killed  him  as  they  might  kill  a  spider  or  a  fly,  for  the 
experience.  They  killed  him  because  they  were  made 
that  way.  Because  somewhere  in  the  infinite  processes 
that  go  to  the  making  up  of  the  boy  or  the  man  some¬ 
thing  slipped,  and  those  unfortunate  lads  sit  here  hated, 
despised,  outcasts,  with  the  community  shouting  for  their 
blood. 

Are  they  to  blame  for  it?  There  is  no  man  on  earth 
who  can  mention  any  purpose  for  it  all  or  any  reason 
for  it  all.  It  is  one  of  those  things  that  happened ;  that 


28 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


happened,  and  it  calls  not  for  hate  but  for  kindness,  for 
charity,  for  consideration. 

I  heard  the  State’s  Attorney  talk  of  mothers. 

Mr.  Savage  is  talking  for  the  mothers,  and  Mr.  Crowe 
is  thinking  of  the  mothers,  and  I  am  thinking  of  the 
mothers.  Mr.  Savage,  with  the  immaturity  of  youth  and 
inexperience,  says  that  if  we  hang  them  there  will  be 
no  more  killing.  This  world  has  been  one  long  slaughter 
house  from  the  beginning  until  today,  and  killing  goes 
on  and  on  and  on,  and  will  forever.  Why  not  read 
something,  why  not  study  something,  why  not  think  in¬ 
stead  of  blindly  shouting  for  death? 

Kill  them.  Will  that  prevent  other  senseless  boys  or 
other  vicious  men  or  vicious  women  from  killing?  No! 

It  will  simply  call  upon  every  weak  minded  person  to 
do  as  they  have  done.  I  know  how  easy  it  is  to  talk 
about  mothers  when  you  want  to  do  something  cruel. 
But  I  am  thinking  of  the  mothers,  too.  I  know  that  any 
mother  might  be  the  mother  of  a  little  Bobby  Franks, 
who  left  his  home  and  went  to  his  school,  and  who  never 
came  back.  I  know  that  any  mother  might  be  the  mother 
of  Richard  Loeb  and  Nathan  Leopold,  just  the  same. 
The  trouble  is  this,  that  if  she  is  the  mother  of  a  Nathan 
Leopold  or  of  a  Richard  Loeb,  she  has  to  ask  herself 
the  question: 

“How  came  my  children  to  be  what  they  are?  From 
what  ancestry  did  they  get  this  strain?  How  far  re¬ 
moved  was  the  poison  that  destroyed  their  lives?  Was 
I  the  bearer  of  the  seed  that  brings  them  to  death?” 

Any  mother  might  be  the  mother  of  any  of  them.  But 
these  two  are  the  victims.  I  remember  a  little  poem  that 
gives  the  soliloquy  of  a  boy  about  to  be  hanged,  a  soli¬ 
loquy  such  as  these  boys  might  make: 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


29 


“The  night  my  father  got  me 
His  mind  was  not  on  me; 

He  did  not  plague  his  fancy 
To  muse  if  I  should  be 
The  son  you  see. 

The  day  my  mother  bore  me 
She  was  a  fool  and  glad, 

For  all  the  pain  I  cost  her, 

That  she  had  borne  the  lad 
That  borne  she  had. 

My  father  and  my  mother 
Out  of  the  light  they  lie; 

The  warrant  would  not  find  them, 

And  here,  ’tis  only  I 
Shall  hang  so  high. 

O  let  not  man  remember 
The  soul  that  God  forgot, 

But  fetch  the  county  sheriff 
And  noose  me  in  a  knot, 

And  I  will  rot. 

And  so  the  game  is  ended, 

That  should  not  have  begun. 

My  father  and  my  mother 
They  had  a  likely  son, 

And  I  have  none.” 

No  one  knows  what  will  be  the  fate  of  the  child  he 
gets  or  the  child  she  bears;  the  fate  of  the  child  is  the 
last  thing  they  consider.  This  weary  old  world  goes  on, 
begetting,  with  birth  and  with  living  and  with  death; 
and  all  of  it  is  blind  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  I 


30 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


do  not  know  what  it  was  that  made  these  boys  do  this 
mad  act,  but  I  do  know  there  is  a  reason  for  it.  I  know 
they  did  not  beget  themselves.  I  know  that  any  one  of 
an  infinite  number  of  causes  reaching  back  to  the  begin¬ 
ning  might  be  working  out  in  these  boys’  minds,  whom 
you  are  asked  to  hang  in  malice  and  in  hatred  and  in¬ 
justice,  because  someone  in  the  past  has  sinned  against 
them. 

I  am  sorry  for  the  fathers  as  well  as  the  mothers,  for 
the  fathers  who  give  their  strength  and  their  lives  for 
educating  and  protecting  and  creating  a  fortune  for  the 
boys  that  they  love;  for  the  mothers  who  go  down  into 
the  shadow  of  death  for  their  children,  who  nourish  them 
and  care  for  them,  and  risk  their  lives,  that  they  may 
live,  who  watch  them  with  tenderness  and  fondness  and 
longing,  and  who  go  down  into  dishonor  and  disgrace  for 
the  children  that  they  love. 

All  of  these  are  helpless.  We  are  all  helpless.  But 
when  your  are  pitying  the  father  and  the  mother  of  poor 
Bobby  Franks,  what  about  the  fathers  and  mothers  of 
these  two  unfortunate  boys,  and  what  about  the  unfor¬ 
tunate  bo3rs  themselves,  and  what  about  all  the  fathers 
and  all  the  mothers  and  all  the  boys  and  all  the  girls 
who  tread  a  dangerous  maze  in  darkness  from  birth  to 
death  ? 

Do  you  think  you  can  cure  it  by  hanging  these  two? 
Do  you  think  you  can  cure  the  hatreds  and  the  mal¬ 
adjustments  of  the  world  by  hanging  them?  You  sim¬ 
ply  show  your  ignorance  and  your  hate  when  you  say  it. 
You  may  here  and  there  cure  hatred  with  love  and  un¬ 
derstanding,  but  you  can  only  add  fuel  to  the  flames  by 
cruelty  and  hate. 

What  is  my  friend’s  idea  of  justice?  He  says  to  this 
court,  whom  he  says  he  respects — and  I  believe  he  does 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  31 

— your  Honor,  who  sits  here  patiently,  holding  the  lives 
of  these  two  boys  in  your  hands: 

“Give  them  the  same  mercy  that  they  gave  to  Bobby 
Franks.” 

Is  that  the  law?  Is  that  justice?  Is  this  what  a  court 
should  do?  Is  this  what  a  State’s  Attorney  should  do? 
If  the  state  in  which  I  live  is  not  kinder,  more  human, 
more  considerate,  more  intelligent  than  the  mad  act  of 
these  two  boys,  I  am  sorry  that  I  have  lived  so  long. 

I  am  sorry  for  all  fathers  and  all  mothers.  The 
mother  who  looks  into  the  blue  eyes  of  her  little  babe 
cannot  help  musing  over  the  end  of  the  child,  whether 
it  will  be  crowned  with  the  greatest  promises  which  her 
mind  can  image  or  whether  he  may  meet  death  upon  the 
scaffold.  All  she  can  do  is  to  rear  him  with  love  and 
care,  to  watch  over  him  tenderly,  to  meet  life  with  hope 
and  trust  and  confidence,  and  to  leave  the  rest  with  fate. 

Your  Honor,  last  night  I  was  speaking  about  what 
is  perfectly  obvious  in  this  case,  that  no  human  being 
could  have  done  what  these  boys  did,  excepting  through 
the  operation  of  a  diseased  brain.  I  do  not  propose  to 
go  through  each  step  of  the  terrible  deed, — it  would  take 
too  long.  But  I  do  want  to  call  the  attention  of  this 
court  to  some  of  the  other  acts  of  these  two  boys,  in  this 
distressing  and  weird  homicide;  acts  which  show  conclu¬ 
sively  that  there  could  be  no  reason  for  their  conduct. 

I  spoke  about  their  registering  at  a  hotel,  and  leaving 
their  names  behind  them,  without  a  chance  to  escape.  I 
referred  to  these  weird  letters  which  were  written  and 
mailed  after  the  boy  was  dead. 

I  want  to  come  down  now  to  the  actions  on  the  after¬ 
noon  of  the  tragedy. 

Without  any  excuse,  without  the  slightest  motive,  not 


32 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


moved  by  money,  not  moved  by  passion  or  hatred,  by 
nothing  except  the  vague  wanderings  of  children,  they 
rented  a  machine,  and  about  four  o’clock  in  the  after¬ 
noon  started  to  find  somebody  to  kill.  For  nothing. 

They  went  over  to  the  Harvard  School.  Dick’s  little 
brother  was  there,  on  the  playground.  Dick  went  there 
himself  in  open  daylight,  known  by  all  of  them,  he  had 
been  a  pupil  there  himself,  the  school  was  near  his  home, 
and  he  looked  over  the  little  boys. 

Your  Honor  has  been  in  these  courts  for  a  long  time; 
you  have  listened  to  murder  cases  before.  Has  any  such 
case  ever  appeared  here  or  in  any  of  the  books?  Has  it 
ever  come  to  the  human  experience  of  any  judge,  or  any 
lawyer,  or  any  person  of  affairs?  Never  once! 

Ordinarily  there  would  be  no  sort  of  question  of  the 
condition  of  these  boys’  minds.  The  question  is  raised 
only  because  their  parents  have  money. 

They  first  picked  out  a  little  boy  named  Levinson,  and 
Dick  trailed  him  around. 

Now,  of  course,  that  is  a  hard  story.  It  is  a  story  that 
shocks  one.  A  boy  bent  on  killing,  not  knowing  where 
he  would  go  or  who  he  would  get,  but  seeking  some 
victim. 

Here  is  a  little  boy,  but  the  circumstances  are  not  op¬ 
portune,  and  so  he  fails  to  get  him. 

As  I  think  of  that  story  of  Dick  trailing  this  little  boy 
around,  there  comes  to  my  mind  a  picture  of  Dr.  Krohn; 
for  sixteen  years  going  in  and  out  of  the  court  rooms  in 
this  building  and  other  buildings,  trailing  victims  with¬ 
out  regard  to  the  name  or  sex  or  age  or  surroundings. 
But  he  had  a  motive,  and  his  motive  was  cash,  as  I  will 
show  further.  One  was  the  mad  act  of  a  child;  the 
other  the  cold,  deliberate  act  of  a  man  getting  his  living 
by  dealing  in  blood. 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


33 


Dick  abandons  that  lead;  Dick  and  Nathan  are  in  the 
car,  and  they  see  Bobby  Franks  on  the  street,  and  they 
call  to  him  to  get  into  the  car.  It  is  about  five  o’clock  in 
the  afternoon,  in  the  long  summer  days,  on  a  thickly  set¬ 
tled  street,  built  up  with  homes,  the  houses  of  their 
friends  and  their  companions  known  to  everybody,  auto¬ 
mobiles  appearing  and  disappearing,  and  they  take  him 
in  the  car — for  nothing. 

If  there  had  been  a  question  of  revenge,  yes;  if  there 
had  been  a  question  of  hate,  where  no  one  cares  for  his 
own  fate,  intent  only  on  accomplishing  his  end,  yes.  But 
without  any  motive  or  any  reason  they  picked  up  this 
little  boy  right  in  sight  of  their  own  homes,  and  sur¬ 
rounded  by  their  neighbors.  They  drive  a  little  way, 
on  a  populous  street,  where  everybody  could  see,  where 
eyes  might  be  at  every  window  as  they  pass  by.  They 
hit  him  over  the  head  with  a  chisel  and  kill  him,  and  go 
on  about  their  business,  driving  this  car  within  half  a 
block  of  Loeb’s  home,  within  the  same  distance  of 
Frank’s  home,  drive  it  past  the  neighbors  that  they  knew, 
in  the  open  highway,  in  broad  daylight.  And  still  men 
will  say  that  they  have  a  bright  intellect,  and,  as  Dr. 
Krohn  puts  it,  can  orient  themselves  and  reason  as  well 
as  he  can,  possibly,  and  it  is  the  sane  act  of  sane  men. 

I  say  again,  whatever  madness  and  hate  and  frenzy 
may  do  to  the  human  mind,  there  is  not  a  single  person 
who  reasons  who  can  believe  that  one  of  these  acts  was 
the  act  of  men,  of  brains  that  were  not  diseased.  There 
is  no  other  explanation  for  it.  And  had  it  not  been  for 
the  wealth  and  the  weirdness  and  the  notoriety,  they 
would  have  been  sent  to  the  psychopathic  hospital  for 
examination,  and  been  taken  care  of,  instead  of  the  state 
demanding  that  this  court  take  the  last  pound  of  flesh 
and  the  last  drop  of  blood  from  two  irresponsible  lads. 


34 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


They  pull  the  dead  boy  into  the  back  seat,  and  wrap 
him  in  a  blanket,  and  this  funeral  car  starts  on  its  route. 

If  ever  any  death  car  went  over  the  same  route  or  the 
same  kind  of  a  route  driven  by  sane  people,  I  have  never 
heard  of  it,  and  I  fancy  no  one  else  has  ever  heard  of  it. 

This  car  is  driven  for  twenty  miles.  First  down 
through  thickly  populated  streets,  where  everyone  knew 
the  boys  and  their  families,  and  had  known  them  for 
years,  till  they  come  to  The  Midway  Boulevard,  and 
then  take  the  main  line  of  a  street  which  is  traveled  more 
than  any  other  street  on  the  south  side  except  in  the 
loop,  among  automobiles  that  can  scarcely  go  along  on 
account  of  the  number,  straight  down  The  Midway 
through  the  regular  route  of  Jackson  Park,  Nathan  Leo¬ 
pold  driving  this  car,  and  Dick  Loeb  on  the  back  seat, 
and  the  dead  boy  with  him. 

The  slightest  accident,  the  slightest  misfortune,  a  bit 
of  curiosity,  an  arrest  for  speeding,  anything  would  bring 
destruction.  They  go  down  The  Midway,  through  the 
park,  meeting  hundreds  of  machines,  in  sight  of  thou¬ 
sands  of  eyes,  with  the  dead  boy. 

For  what?  For  nothing!  The  mad  acts  of  the  fool 
in  King  Lear  is  the  only  thing  I  know  of  that  compares 
with  it.  And  yet  doctors  will  swear  that  it  is  a  sane 
act.  They  know  better. 

They  go  down  a  thickly  populated  street  through 
South  Chicago,  and  then  for  three  miles  take  the  longest 
street  to  go  through  this  city;  built  solid  with  business, 
buildings,  filled  with  automobiles  backed  upon  the  street, 
with  street  cars  on  the  track,  with  thousands  of  peering 
eyes;  one  boy  driving  and  the  other  on  the  back  seat, 
with  the  corpse  of  little  Bobby  Franks,  the  blood  stream¬ 
ing  from  him,  wetting  everything  in  the  car. 

And  yet  they  tell  me  that  this  is  sanity;  they  tell  m< 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


35 


that  the  brains  of  these  boys  are  not  diseased.  You 
need  no  experts,  you  need  no  X-rays;  you  need  no  study 
of  the  endocrines.  Their  conduct  shows  exactly  what 
it  was,  and  shows  that  this  court  has  before  him  two 
young  men  who  should  be  examined  in  a  psychopathic 
hospital  and  treated  kindly  and  with  care.  They  get 
through  South  Chicago,  and  they  take  the  regular  auto¬ 
mobile  road  down  toward  Hammond.  There  is  the  same 
situation;  hundreds  of  machines;  any  accident  might  en¬ 
compass  their  ruin.  They  stop  at  the  forks  of  the  road, 
and  leave  little  Bobby  Franks,  soaked  with  blood,  in 
the  machine,  and  get  their  dinner,  and  eat  it  without  an 
emotion  or  a  qualm. 

Your  Honor,  we  do  not  need  to  believe  in  miracles; 
we  need  not  resort  to  that  in  order  to  get  blood.  If  it 
were  any  other  case,  there  could  not  be  a  moment’s  hesi¬ 
tancy  as  to  what  to  do. 

I  repeat,  you  may  search  the  annals  of  crime,  and  you 
can  find  no  parallel.  It  is  utterly  at  variance  with  every 
motive  and  every  act  and  every  part  of  conduct  that  in¬ 
fluences  normal  people  in  the  commission  of  crime. 
There  is  not  a  sane  thing  in  all  of  this  from  the  begin¬ 
ning  to  the  end.  There  was  not  a  normal  act  in  any  of 
it,  from  its  inception  in  a  diseased  brain,  until  today, 
when  they  sit  here  awaiting  their  doom. 

But  we  are  told  that  they  planned.  Well,  what  does 
that  mean?  A  maniac  plans,  an  idiot  plans;  an  animal 
plans;  any  brain  that  functions  may  plan;  but  their  plans 
were  the  diseased  plans  of  the  diseased  mind.  Do  I  need 
to  argue  it?  Does  anybody  need  to  more  than  glance 
at  it?  Is  there  any  man  with  a  fair  intellect  and  a  decent 
regard  for  human  life,  and  the  slightest  bit  of  heart  that 
does  not  understand  this  situation? 

And  still,  your  Honor,  on  account  of  its  weirdness 


36  PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 

and  its  strangeness,  and  its  advertising,  we  are  forced 
to  fight.  For  what?  Forced  to  plead  to  this  court  that 
two  boys,  one  eighteen  and  the  other  nineteen,  may  be 
permitted  to  live  in  silence  and  solitude  and  disgrace  and 
spend  all  their  days  in  the  penitentiary.  Asking  this 
court  and  the  State’s  Attorney  to  be  merciful  enough  to 
let  these  two  boys  be  locked  up  in  a  prison  until  they  die. 

I  sometimes  wonder  if  I  am  dreaming.  If  in  the  first 
quarter  of  the  twentieth  century  there  has  come  back 
into  the  hearts  of  men,  the  hate  and  feeling  and  the  lust 
for  blood  which  possesses  the  primitive  savage  of  bar¬ 
barous  lands. 

What  do  they  want?  Tell  me,  is  a  life  time  for  the 
young  boys  spent  behind  prison  bars, — is  that  not  enough 
for  this  mad  act?  And  is  there  any  reason  why  this 
great  public  should  be  regaled  by  a  hanging? 

I  can  not  understand  it,  your  Honor.  It  would  be 
past  belief,  excepting  that  to  the  four  corners  of  the  earth 
the  news  of  this  weird  act  has  been  carried  and  men  have 
been  stirred,  and  the  primitive  has  come  back,  and  the 
intellect  has  been  stifled,  and  men  have  been  controlled 
by  feelings  and  passions  and  hatred  which  should  have 
died  centuries  ago. 

My  friend  Savage  pictured  to  you  the  putting  of  this 
dead  boy  in  this  culvert.  Well,  no  one  can  minutely 
describe  any  killing  and  not  make  it  shocking.  It  is 
shocking.  It  is  shocking  because  we  love  life  and  because 
we  instinctively  draw  back  from  death.  It  is  shocking 
wherever  it  is  and  however  it  is,  and  perhaps  all  death  is 
almost  equally  shocking. 

But  here  is  the  picture  of  a  dead  boy,  past  pain,  when 
no  harm  can  come  to  him,  put  in  a  culvert,  after  taking 
off  his  clothes  so  that  the  evidence  would  be  destroyed; 
and  that  is  pictured  to  this  court  as  a  reason  for  hanging. 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


37 


Well,  your  Honor,  that  does  not  appeal  to  me  as  strongly 
as  the  hitting  over  the  head  of  little  Robert  Franks 
with  a  chisel.  The  boy  was  dead. 

I  could  say  something  about  the  death  penalty  that, 
for  some  mysterious  reason,  the  state  wants  in  this  case. 
Why  do  they  want  it?  To  vindicate  the  law?  Oh,  no. 
The  law  can  be  vindicated  without  killing  anyone  else. 
It  might  shock  the  fine  sensibilities  of  the  state’s  counsel 
that  this  boy  was  put  into  a  culvert  and  left  after  he  was 
dead,  but,  your  Honor,  I  can  think  of  a  scene  that  makes 
this  pale  into  insignificance.  I  can  think,  and  only  think , 
your  Honor,  of  taking  two  boys,  one  eighteen  and  the 
other  nineteen,  irresponsible,  weak,  diseased,  penning 
them  in  a  cell,  checking  off  the  days  and  the  hours  and 
the  minutes,  until  they  will  be  taken  out  and  hanged. 
Wouldn’t  it  be  a  glorious  day  for  Chicago?  Wouldn’t 
it  be  a  glorious  triumph  for  the  State’s  Attorney? 
Wouldn’t  it  be  a  glorious  triumph  for  justice  in  this 
land?  Wouldn’t  it  be  a  glorious  illustration  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  kindness  and  charity?  I  can  picture  them, 
wakened  in  the  gray  light  of  morning,  furnished  a  suit 
of  clothes  by  the  state,  led  to  the  scaffold,  their  feet  tied, 
black  caps  drawn  over  their  heads,  stood  on  a  trap  door, 
the  hangman  pressing  a  spring,  so  that  it  gives  way 
under  them;  I  can  see  them  fall  through  space — and — 
stopped  by  the  rope  around  their  necks. 

This  would  surely  expiate  placing  Bobbie  Franks  in 
the  culvert  after  he  was  dead.  This  would  doubtless 
bring  immense  satisfaction  to  some  people.  It  would 
bring  a  greater  satisfaction  because  it  would  be  done  in 
the  name  of  justice.  I  am  always  suspicious  of  righteous 
indignation.  Nothing  is  more  cruel  than  righteous  in¬ 
dignation.  To  hear  young  men  talk  glibly  of  justice. 
Well,  it  would  make  me  smile  if  it  did  not  make  me 


38 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


sad.  Who  knows  what  it  is?  Does  Mr.  Savage  know? 
Does  Mr.  Crowe  know?  Do  I  know?  Does  your 
Honor  know?  Is  there  any  human  machinery  for  find¬ 
ing  it  out?  Is  there  any  man  can  weigh  me  and  say 
what  I  deserve?  Can  your  Honor?  Let  us  be  honest. 
Can  your  Honor  appraise  yourself,  and  say  what  you 
deserve?  Can  your  Honor  appraise  these  two  young 
men  and  say  what  they  deserve?  Justice  must  take 
account  of  infinite  circumstances  which  a  human  being 
can  not  understand. 

If  there  is  such  a  thing  as  justice  it  could  only  be 
administered  by  one  who  knew  the  inmost  thoughts  of 
the  man  to  whom  they  were  meting  it  out.  Aye,  who 
knew  the  father  and  mother  and  the  grandparents  and 
the  infinite  number  of  people  back  of  him?  Who  knew 
the  origin  of  every  cell  that  went  into  the  body,  who 
could  understand  the  structure,  and  how  it  acted?  Who 
could  tell  how  the  emotions  that  sway  the  human  being 
affected  that  particular  frail  piece  of  clay?  It  means 
more  than  that.  It  means  that  you  must  appraise  every 
influence  that  moves  them,  the  civilization  where  they 
live,  and  all  society  which  enters  into  the  making  of  the 
child  or  the  man!  If  your  Honor  can  do  it — if  you 
can  do  it  you  are  wise,  and  with  wisdom  goes  mercy. 

No  one  with  wisdom  and  with  understanding,  no  one 
who  is  honest  with  himself  and  with  his  own  life  who¬ 
ever  he  may  be,  no  one  who  has  seen  himself  the  prey 
and  the  sport  and  the  plaything  of  the  infinite  forces 
that  move  man,  no  one  who  has  tried  and  who  has  failed, 
— and  we  have  all  tried  and  we  have  all  failed, — no 
one  can  tell  what  justice  is  for  someone  else  or  for  him¬ 
self — and  the  more  he  tries  and  the  more  responsibility 
he  takes  the  more  he  clings  to  mercy  as  being  the  one 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  39 

thing  which  he  is  sure  should  control  his  judgment  of 
men. 

It  is  not  so  much  mercy  either,  your  Honor.  I  can 
hardly  understand  myself  pleading  to  a  court  to  visit 
mercy  on  two  boys  by  shutting  them  into  a  prison  for 
life. 

For  life!  Where  is  the  human  heart  that  would  not 
be  satisfied  with  that? 

Where  is  the  man  or  woman  who  understands  his  own 
life  and  who  has  a  particle  of  feeling  that  could  ask  for 
more.  Any  cry  for  more,  roots  back  to  the  hyena;  it 
roots  back  to  the  hissing  serpent;  it  roots  back  to  the 
beast  and  the  jungle.  It  is  not  a  part  of  man.  It  is 
not  a  part  of  that  feeling  which,  let  us  hope,  is  growing, 
though  scenes  like  this  sometimes  make  me  doubt  that 
it  is  growing;  it  is  not  a  part  of  that  feeling  of  mercy 
and  pity  and  understanding  of  each  other  which  we  be¬ 
lieve  has  been  slowly  raising  man  from  his  low  estate. 
It  is  not  a  part  of  the  finer  instincts  which  are  slow  to 
develop;  of  the  wider  knowledge  which  is  slow  to  come, 
and  slow  to  move  us  when  it  comes.  It  is  not  a  part  of 
all  that  makes  the  best  there  is  in  man.  It  is  not  a  part 
of  all  that  promises  any  hope  for  the  future  and  any 
justice  for  the  present.  And  must  I  ask  that  these  boys 
get  mercy  by  spending  the  rest  of  their  lives  in  prison, 
year  following  year,  month  following  month,  and  day 
following  day,  with  nothing  to  look  forward  to  but 
hostile  guards  and  stone  walls?  It  ought  not  to  be  hard 
to  get  that  much  mercy  in  any  court  in  the  year  1924. 
These  boys  left  this  body  down  in  the  culvert  and  they 
came  back;  telephoned,  first; — telephoned  home  that 

I  they  would  be  too  late  for  supper.  Here,  surely,  was 
an  act  of  consideration  on  the  part  of  Leopold,  telephon¬ 
ing  home  that  he  would  be  late  for  supper.  Dr.  Krohn 


40 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


says  he  must  be  able  to  think  and  act  because  he  could 
do  this.  But  the  boy  who  through  habit  would  telephone 
his  home  that  he  would  be  late  for  supper  had  not  a 
tremor  or  a  thought  or  a  shudder  at  taking  the  life  of 
little  Bobby  Franks  for  nothing,  and  he  has  not  had  one 
yet.  He  was  in  the  habit  of  doing  what  he  did,  when 
he  telephoned, — that  was  all;  but  in  the  presence  of  life 
and  death,  and  a  cruel  death,  he  had  no  tremor,  and  no 
thought. 

They  came  back.  They  got  their  dinners.  They 
parked  the  bloody  automobile  in  front  of  Leopold’s 
house.  They  cleaned  it  to  some  extent  that  night  and 
left  it  standing  in  the  street  in  front  of  their  home. 

“Oriented,”  of  course.  “Oriented.”  They  left  it 
there  for  the  night,  so  that  anybody  might  see  and  might 
know.  They  took  it  into  the  garage  the  next  day  and 
washed  it,  and  then  poor  little  Dickie  Loeb — I  shouldn’t 
call  him  Dickie,  and  I  shouldn’t  call  him  poor,  because 
that  might  be  playing  for  sympathy,  and  you  have  no 
right  to  ask  for  sympathy  in  this  world ;  Y ou  should  ask 
for  justice,  whatever  that  may  be;  and  only  State’s  At¬ 
torneys  know. 

And  then  in  a  day  or  so  we  find  Dick  Loeb  with  his 
pockets  stuffed  with  newspapers  telling  of  the  Franks 
tragedy.  We  find  him  consulting  with  his  friends  in 
the  club,  with  the  newspaper  reporters;  and  my  expe¬ 
rience  is  that  the  last  person  that  a  conscious  criminal 
associates  with  is  a  reporter.  He  even  shuns  them  more 
than  he  does  a  detective,  because  they  are  smarter  and 
less  merciful.  But  he  picks  up  a  reporter,  and  he  tells 
him  he  has  read  a  great  many  detective  stories,  and  he 
knows  just  how  this  would  happen  and  that  the  fellow 
who  telephoned  must  have  been  down  on  63rd  Street, 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  41 

and  the  way  to  find  him  is  to  go  down  on  63rd  Street 
and  visit  the  drug  stores,  and  he  would  go  with  him. 

And  Dick  Loeb  pilots  reporters  around  the  drug  stores 
where  the  telephoning  was  done,  and  he  talks  about  it, 
and  he  takes  the  newspapers,  and  takes  them  with  him, 
and  he  is  having  a  glorious  time.  And  yet  he  is  “per¬ 
fectly  oriented,”  in  the  language  of  Dr.  Krohn.  “Per¬ 
fectly  oriented.”  Is  there  any  question  about  the 
condition  of  his  mind?  Why  was  he  doing  it?  He 
liked  to  hear  about  it.  He  had  done  something  that  he 
could  not  boast  of  directly,  but  he  did  want  to  hear  other 
people  talk  about  it,  and  he  looked  around  there,  and 
helped  them  find  the  place  where  the  telephone  message 
was  sent  out. 

Your  honor  has  had  experience  with  criminals  and  you 
know  how  they  act.  Was  any  such  thing  as  this  ever 
heard  of  before  on  land  or  sea?  Does  not  the  man  who 
knows  what  he  is  doing,  who  for  some  reason  has  been 
overpowered  and  commits  what  is  called  a  crime,  keep 
as  far  away  from  it  as  he  can?  Does  he  go  to  the  re¬ 
porters  and  help  them  hunt  it  out?  There  is  not  a  single 
act  in  this  case  that  is  not  the  act  of  a  diseased  mind,  not 
one. 

Talk  about  scheming.  Yes,  it  is  the  scheme  of  dis¬ 
ease;  it  is  the  scheme  of  infancy;  it  is  the  scheme  of  fools; 
it  is  the  scheme  of  irresponsibility  from  the  time  it  was 
conceived  until  the  last  act  in  the  tragedy.  And  yet  we 
have  to  talk  about  it,  and  argue  about  it,  when  it  is 
obvious  to  anyone  who  cares  to  know  the  truth.  But 
they  must  be  hanged,  because  everybody  is  talking  about 
the  case,  and  their  people  have  money.  Am  I  asking  for 
much  in  this  case?  Let  me  see  for  a  moment  now.  Is  it 
customary  to  get  anything  on  a  plea  of  guilty?  How 
about  the  State’s  Attorney?  Do  they  not  give  you  some- 


42 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


thing  on  a  plea  of  guilty?  How  many  times  has  your 
honor  listened  to  the  State’s  Attorney  come  into  this 
court,  with  a  man  charged  with  robbery  with  a  gun, 
which  means  from  ten  years  to  life,  and  on  condition 
of  a  plea  of  guilty,  ask  to  have  the  gun  charge  stricken 
out,  and  get  a  sentence  of  three  to  twenty  years,  with  a 
chance  to  see  daylight  inside  of  three  years?  How  many 
times?  How  many  times  has  the  State’s  Attorney  him¬ 
self  asked  consideration  for  everything  including  murder, 
not  only  for  the  young,  but  even  the  old?  How  many 
times  have  they  come  into  this  court,  and  into  every 
court,  not  only  here  but  everywhere,  and  asked  for  it? 
Your  honor  knows.  I  will  guarantee  that  three  times 
out  of  four  in  criminal  cases,  and  much  more  than  that 
in  murder,  ninety-nine  times  out  of  one  hundred,  and 
much  more  than  that;  I  would  say  not  twice  in  a  thou¬ 
sand  times  has  the  state  failed  to  give  consideration  to 
the  defendant  on  a  plea. 

How  many  times  has  your  honor  been  asked  to  change 
a  sentence,  and  not  hold  a  man  guilty  of  robbery  with 
a  gun,  and  give  him  a  chance  on  a  plea  of  guilty — not 
a  boy  but  a  man? 

How  many  times  have  others  done  it,  and  over  and 
over  and  over  again?  And  it  will  be  done  so  long  as 
justice  is  fairly  administered;  and  in  a  case  of  a  charge 
of  robbery  with  a  gun,  coupled  with  larceny,  how  many 
times  have  both  the  robbery  and  the  gun  been  waived, 
and  a  plea  of  larceny  made,  so  that  the  defendant  might 
be  released  in  a  year? 

How  many  times  has  all  of  it  been  waived,  and  the 
defendant  given  a  year  in  the  bridewell?  Many  and 
many  a  time  because  they  are  boys, — and  youth  has  ter¬ 
rible  responsibilities,  and  youth  should  have  advantages; 
and  with  sane  and  humane  people,  youth,  the  protection 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


43 


of  childhood,  is  always  one  of  the  first  concerns  of  the 
state.  It  is  one  of  the  first  in  the  human  heart,  and  it 
is  one  of  the  first  in  the  human  mind. 

How  many  times  has  rape  been  changed  to  assault,  and 
the  defendant  given  a  year,  or  even  a  Bridewell  sen¬ 
tence?  How  many  times  has  mercy  come  even  from  the 
State’s  Attorney’s  office  ?  I  am  not  criticizing.  It  should 
come  and  I  am  telling  this  court  what  this  court  knows. 
And  yet  forsooth,  for  some  reason,  here  is  a  case  of  two 
immature  boys  of  diseased  mind,  as  plain  as  the  light  of 
day,  and  they  say  you  can  get  justice  only  by  shedding 
their  last  drop  of  blood ! 

Why?  I  can  ask  the  question  easier  than  I  can  an¬ 
swer  it.  Why?  It  is  unheard  of,  unprecedented  in  this 
court,  unknown  among  civilized  men.  And  yet  this 
court  is  to  make  an  example  or  civilization  will  fail.  I 
suppose  civilization  will  survive  if  your  Honor  hangs 
them.  But  it  will  be  a  terrible  blow  that  you  shall  deal. 
Your  Honor  will  be  turning  back  over  the  long,  long 
road  we  have  traveled.  You  will  be  turning  back  from 
the  protection  of  youth  and  infancy.  Your  Honor 
would  be  turning  back  from  the  treatment  of  children. 
Your  Honor  would  be  turning  back  to  the  barbarous 
days  which  Brother  Marshall  seems  to  love,  when  they 
burned  people  thirteen  years  of  age.  You  would  be  deal¬ 
ing  a  staggering  blow  to  all  that  has  been  done  in  the 
City  of  Chicago  in  the  last  twenty  years  for  the  protec¬ 
tion  of  infancy  and  childhood  and  youth. 

And  for  what?  Because  the  people  are  talking  about 
it.  Nothing  else.  It  would  not  mean,  your  Honor,  that 
your  reason  was  convinced.  It  would  mean  in  this  land 
of  ours,  where  talk  is  cheap,  where  newspapers  are  plenty, 
where  the  most  immature  expresses  his  opinion,  and  the 
more  immature  the  stronger,  that  a  court  couldn’t  help 


44  PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 

feeling  the  great  pressure  of  the  public  opinion  which 
they  say  exists  in  this  case. 

Coming  alone  in  this  court  room  with  obscure  defend¬ 
ants,  doing  what  has  been  done  in  this  case,  coming  with 
the  outside  world  shut  off,  as  in  most  cases,  and  saying 
to  this  court  and  counsel : 

“I  believe  that  these  boys  ought  not  to  be  at  large,  I 
believe  they  are  immature  and  irresponsible,  and  I  am 
willing  to  enter  a  plea  of  guilty  and  let  you  sentence 
them  to  life  imprisonment,”  how  long  do  you  suppose 
your  Honor  would  hesitate?  Do  you  suppose  the  State’s 
Attorneys  would  raise  their  voices  in  protest? 

You  know  it  has  been  done  too  many  times.  And 
here  for  the  first  time,  under  these  circumstances,  this 
court  is  told  that  you  must  make  an  example. 

Let  us  take  some  other  cases.  How  many  times  has 
a  defendant  come  into  this  court  charged  with  burglary 
and  larceny,  and  because  of  youth  or  because  of  some¬ 
thing  else  the  State’s  Attorney  has  waived  the  burglary, 
and  consented  to  a  year  for  larceny;  no  more  than  that. 

Let  me  ask  this  question. 

How  many  times,  your  Honor,  have  defendants  come 
into  this  court — and  I  am  not  speaking  of  your  Honor’s 
court  alone;  I  am  speaking  of  all  the  criminal  courts  in 
this  country — have  defendants  come  in  charged  with  a 
burglary  and  larceny  and  been  put  on  parole,  told  to  go 
and  sin  no  more,  given  another  chance?  It  is  true  in 
almost  all  cases  of  the  young,  except  for  serious  aggra¬ 
vation. 

Can  you  administer  law  without  consideration?  Can 
you  administer  what  approaches  justice  without  it?  Can 
this  court  or  any  court  administer  justice  by  consciously 
turning  his  heart  to  stone  and  being  deaf  to  all  the  finer 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  45 

instincts  which  move  men?  Without  those  instincts  I 
wonder  what  would  happen  to  the  human  race? 

If  a  man  could  judge  a  fellow  in  coldness  without 
taking  account  of  his  own  life,  without  taking  account  of 
what  he  knows  of  human  life,  without  some  understand¬ 
ing, — how  long  would  we  be  a  race  of  real  human  be¬ 
ings?  It  has  taken  the  world  a  long  time  for  man  to 
get  to  even  where  he  is  today.  If  the  law  was  admin¬ 
istered  without  any  feeling  of  sympathy  or  humanity 
or  kindliness,  we  would  begin  our  long,  slow  journey 
back  to  the  jungle  that  was  formerly  our  home. 

How  many  times  has  assault  with  intent  to  rob  or  kill 
been  changed  in  these  courts  to  assault  and  battery? 
How  many  times  has  felony  been  waived  in  assault  with 
a  deadly  weapon  and  a  man  or  a  boy  given  a  chance? 
And  we  are  asking  a  chance  to  be  shut  up  in  stone  walls 
for  life.  For  life.  It  is  hard  for  me  to  think  of  it,  but  that 
is  the  mercy  we  are  asking  from  this  court,  which  we 
ought  not  to  be  required  to  ask,  and  which  we  should 
have  as  a  matter  of  right  in  this  court  and  which  I  have 
faith  to  believe  we  will  have  as  a  matter  of  right. 

Is  this  new?  Why,  I  undertake  to  say  that  even  the 
State’s  Attorney’s  office,  and  if  he  denies  it  I  would  like 
to  see  him  bring  in  the  records — I  will  undertake  to  say 
that  in  three  cases  out  of  four  of  all  kinds  and  all  de¬ 
grees,  clemency  has  been  shown. 

Three  hundred  and  forty  murder  cases  in  ten  years 
with  a  plea  of  guilty  in  this  county.  All  the  young  who 
pleaded  guilty — every  one  of  them,  three  hundred  and 
forty  in  ten  years  with  one  hanging  on  a  plea  of  guilty, 
and  that  a  man  forty  years  of  age.  And  yet  they  say 
we  come  here  with  a  preposterous  plea  for  mercy.  When 
did  any  plea  for  mercy  become  preposterous  in  any  tri¬ 
bunal  in  all  the  universe? 


46 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


We  are  satisfied  with  justice,  if  the  court  knows  what 
justice  is,  or  if  any  human  being  can  tell  what  justice  is. 
If  anybody  can  look  into  the  minds  and  hearts  and  the 
lives  and  the  origin  of  these  two  youths  and  tell  what 
justice  is,  we  would  be  content.  But  nobody  can  do  it 
without  imagination,  without  sympathy,  without  kindli¬ 
ness,  without  understanding,  and  I  have  faith  that  this 
court  will  take  this  case,  with  his  conscience,  and  his 
judgment  and  his  courage  and  save  these  boys’  lives. 

Now,  your  honor,  let  me  go  a  little  further  with  this. 
I  have  gone  over  some  of  the  high  spots  in  this  tragedy. 
This  tragedy  has  not  claimed  all  the  attention  it  has  had 
on  account  of  its  atrocity.  There  is  nothing  to  that. 
What  is  it?  There  are  two  reasons,  and  only  two  that 
I  can  see.  First  is  the  reputed  extreme  wealth  of  these 
families;  not  only  the  Loeb  and  Leopold  families,  but 
the  Franks  family,  and  of  course  it  is  unusual.  And 
next  is  the  fact  it  is  weird  and  uncanny  and  motiveless. 
That  is  what  attracted  the  attention  of  the  world.  Many 
may  say  now  that  they  want  to  hang  these  boys;  but  I 
know  that  giving  the  people  blood  is  something  like  giv¬ 
ing  them  their  dinner.  When  they  get  it  they  go  to 
sleep.  They  may  for  the  time  being  have  an  emotion, 
but  they  will  bitterly  regret  it.  And  I  undertake  to  say 
that  if  these  two  boys  are  sentenced  to  death,  and  are 
hanged  on  that  day  there  will  be  a  pall  settle  over  the 
people  of  this  land  that  will  be  dark  and  deep,  and  at 
least  cover  every  humane  and  intelligent  person  with  its 
gloom.  I  wonder  if  it  will  do  good.  I  wonder  if  it  will 
help  the  children — and  there  is  an  infinite  number  like 
these.  I  marveled  when  I  heard  Mr.  Savage  talk.  I  do 
not  criticize  him.  He  is  young  and  enthusiastic.  But 
has  he  ever  read  anything?  Has  he  ever  thought?  Was 
there  ever  any  man  who  had  studied  science,  who  has 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


47 


read  anything  of  criminology  or  philosophy, — was  there 
ever  any  man  who  knew  himself  who  could  speak  with 
the  assurance  with  which  he  speaks? 

What  about  this  matter  of  crime  and  punishment, 
anyhow?  I  may  know  less  than  the  rest,  but  I  have  at 
least  tried  to  find  out,  and  I  am  fairly  familiar  with  the 
best  literature  that  has  been  written  on  that  subject  in 
the  last  hundred  years.  The  more  men  study,  the  more 
they  doubt  the  effect  of  severe  punishment  on  crime. 
And  yet  Mr.  Savage  tells  this  court  that  if  these  boys 
are  hanged,  there  will  be  no  more  murder. 

Mr.  Savage  is  an  optimist.  He  says  that  if  the  de¬ 
fendants  are  hanged  there  will  be  no  more  boys  like 
these. 

I  could  give  him  a  sketch  of  punishment,  punishment 
beginning  with  the  brute  which  killed  something  because 
something  hurt  it;  the  punishment  of  the  savage;  if  a 
person  is  injured  in  the  tribe,  they  must  injure  somebody 
in  the  other  tribe;  it  makes  no  difference  who  it  is,  but 
somebody.  If  one  is  killed  his  friends  or  family  must 
kill  in  return. 

You  can  trace  it  all  down  through  the  history  of  man. 
You  can  trace  the  burnings,  the  boilings,  the  drawings 
and  quarterings,  the  hanging  of  people  in  England  at 
the  crossroads,  carving  them  up  and  hanging  them  as 
examples  for  all  to  see. 

We  can  come  down  to  the  last  century  when  nearly 
two  hundred  crimes  were  punishable  by  death,  and  by 
death  in  every  form;  not  only  hanging — that  was  too 
humane — but  burning,  boiling,  cutting  into  pieces,  tor¬ 
turing  in  all  conceivable  forms. 

You  can  read  the  stories  of  the  hangings  on  a  high 
hill,  and  the  populace  for  miles  around  coming  out  to 
the  scene,  that  everybody  might  be  awed  into  goodness. 


48 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


Hanging  for  picking  pockets — and  more  pockets  were 
picked  in  the  crowd  that  went  to  the  hanging  than  had 
been  known  before.  Hangings  for  murder — and  men 
were  murdered  on  the  way  there  and  on  the  way  home. 
Hangings  for  poaching,  hangings  for  everything  and 
hangings  in  public,  not  shut  up  cruelly  and  brutally  in 
a  jail,  out  of  the  light  of  day,  wakened  in  the  night  time 
and  led  forth  and  killed,  but  taken  to  the  shire  town  on 
a  high  hill,  in  the  presence  of  a  multitude,  so  that  all 
might  see  that  the  wages  of  sin  were  death. 

What  happened?  I  have  read  the  life  of  Lord 
Shaftesbury,  a  great  nobleman  of  England,  who  gave 
his  life  and  his  labors  toward  modifying  the  penal  code. 
I  have  read  of  the  slow,  painful  efforts  through  all  the 
ages  for  more  humanity  of  man  to  his  fellowman.  I 
know  what  history  says,  I  know  what  it  means,  and  I 
know  what  flows  from  it,  so  far  as  we  can  tell,  which  is 
not  with  certainty. 

I  know  that  ever}''  step  in  the  progress  of  humanity 
has  been  met  and  opposed  to  prosecutors,  and  many  times 
by  courts.  I  know  that  when  poaching  and  petty  larceny 
was  punishable  by  death  in  England,  juries  refused  to 
convict.  They  were  too  humane  to  obey  the  law;  and 
judges  refused  to  sentence.  I  know  that  when  the  de¬ 
lusion  of  witchcraft  was  spreading  over  Europe,  claiming 
its  victims  by  the  millions,  many  a  judge  so  shaped  his 
cases  that  no  crime  of  witchcraft  could  be  punished  in 
his  court.  I  know  that  these  trials  were  stopped  in 
America  because  juries  would  no  longer  convict.  I  know 
that  every  step  in  the  progress  of  the  world  in  reference 
to  crime  has  come  from  the  human  feelings  of  man.  It 
has  come  from  that  deep  well  of  sympathy,  that  in  spite 
of  all  our  training  and  all  our  conventions  and  all  our 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  49 

teaching,  still  lives  in  the  human  breast.  Without  it 
there  could  be  no  human  life  on  this  weary  old  world. 

Gradually  the  laws  have  been  changed  and  modified, 
and  men  look  back  with  horror  at  the  hangings  and  the 
killings  of  the  past.  What  did  they  find  in  England? 
That  as  they  got  rid  of  these  barbarous  statutes  crimes 
decreased  instead  of  increased;  as  the  criminal  law  was 
modified  and  humanized,  there  was  less  crime  instead  of 
more.  I  will  undertake  to  say,  your  Honor,  that  you 
can  scarcely  find  a  single  book  written  by  a  student — 
and  I  will  include  all  the  works  on  criminology  of  the 
past — that  has  not  made  the  statement  over  and  over 
again  that  as  the  penal  code  was  made  less  terrible,  crimes 
grew  less  frequent. 

Now  let  us  see  a  little  about  the  psychology  of  man. 
It  is  easy,  your  Honor.  Anybody  can  understand  it  if 
he  just  looks  into  himself.  This  weird  tragedy  occurred 
on  the  2 1st  of  May.  It  has  been  heralded  broadcast 
through  the  world.  How  many  attempted  kidnappings 
have  come  since  then?  How  many  threatening  letters 
have  been  sent  out  by  weak  minded  boys  and  weak 
minded  men  since  then?  How  many  times  have  they 
sought  to  repeat  again  and  again  this  same  crime  because 
of  the  effect  of  publicity  upon  the  mind?  I  can  point 
to  examples  of  killing  and  hanging  in  the  city  of  Chicago 
which  have  been  repeated  in  detail  over  and  over  again, 
simply  from  the  publicity  of  the  newspapers  and  the 
public  generally. 

Let  us  take  this  case.  Let’s  see  whether  we  can  guess 
about  it.  Still  it  is  not  a  guess. 

If  these  two  boys  die  on  the  scaffold,  which  I  can 
never  bring  myself  to  imagine, — if  they  do  die  on  the 
scaffold,  the  details  of  this  will  be  spread  over  the  world. 
Every  newspaper  in  the  United  States  will  carry  a  full 


5o 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARR0W  IN  DEFENSE 


account.  Every  newspaper  of  Chicago  will  be  filled  with 
the  gruesome  details.  It  will  enter  every  home  and 
every  family. 

Will  it  make  men  better  or  make  men  worse?  I  would 
like  to  put  that  to  the  intelligence  of  man,  at  least  such 
intelligence  as  they  have.  I  would  like  to  appeal  to  the 
feelings  of  human  beings  so  far  as  they  have  feelings, — 
would  it  make  the  human  heart  softer  or  would  it  make 
hearts  harder?  How  many  men  would  be  colder  and 
cruder  for  it?  How  many  men  would  enjoy  the  details, 
and  you  cannot  enjoy  human  suffering  without  being 
affected  for  better  or  for  worse;  those  who  enjoyed  it 
would  be  affected  for  the  worse. 

What  influence  would  it  have  upon  the  millions  of 
men  who  will  read  it?  What  influence  would  it  have 
upon  the  millions  of  women  who  will  read  it,  more  sen¬ 
sitive,  more  impressionable,  more  imaginative  than  men? 
Would  it  help  them  if  your  Honor  should  do  what  the 
state  begs  you  to  do?  What  influence  would  it  have 
upon  the  infinite  number  of  children  who  will  devour 
its  details  as  Dicky  Loeb  has  enjoyed  reading  detective 
stories?  Would  it  make  them  better  or  would  it  make 
them  worse?  The  question  needs  no  answer.  You  can 
answer  it  from  the  human  heart.  What  influence,  let 
me  ask  you,  will  it  have  for  the  unborn  babes  still  sleep¬ 
ing  in  their  mother’s  womb?  And  what  influence  will 
it  have  on  the  psychology  of  the  fathers  and  mothers  yet 
to  come?  Do  I  need  to  argue  to  your  Honor  that  cruelty 
only  breeds  cruelty? — that  hatred  only  causes  hatred; 
that  if  there  is  any  way  to  soften  this  human  heart  which 
is  hard  enough  at  its  best,  if  there  is  any  way  to  kill 
evil  and  hatred  and  all  that  goes  with  it,  it  is  not  through 
evil  and  hatred  and  cruelty;  it  is  through  charity,  and 
love  and  understanding. 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


5* 


How  often  dd  people  need  to  be  told  this?  Look  back 
at  the  world.  There  is  not  a  man  who  is  pointed  to  as 
an  example  to  the  world  who  has  not  taught  it.  There 
is  not  a  philosopher,  there  is  not  a  religious  leader,  there 
is  not  a  creed  that  has  not  taught  it.  This  is  a  Christian 
community,  so-called,  at  least  it  boasts  of  it,  and  yet  they 
would  hang  these  boys  in  a  Christian  community.  Let 
me  ask  this  court,  is  there  any  doubt  about  whether  these 
boys  would  be  safe  in  the  hands  of  the  founder  of  the 
Christian  religion?  It  would  be  blasphemy  to  say  they 
would  not.  Nobody  could  imagine,  nobody  could  even 
think  of  it.  And  yet  there  are  men  who  want  to  hang 
them  for  a  childish,  purposeless  act,  conceived  without 
the  slightest  malice  in  the  world. 

Your  Honor,  I  feel  like  apologizing  for  urging  it  so 
long.  It  is  not  because  I  doubt  this  court.  It  is  not  be¬ 
cause  I  do  not  know  something  of  the  human  emotions 
and  the  human  heart.  It  is  not  that  I  do  not  know  that 
every  result  of  logic,  every  page  of  history,  every  line 
of  philosophy  and  religion,  every  precedent  in  this  court, 
urges  this  court  to  save  life.  It  is  not  that.  I  have 
become  obsessed  with  this  deep  feeling  of  hate  and  anger 
that  has  swept  across  this  city  and  this  land.  I  have 
been  fighting  it,  battling  with  it,  until  it  has  fairly  driven 
me  mad,  until  I  sometimes  wonder  whether  every  right¬ 
eous  human  emotion  has  not  gone  down  in  the  raging 
storm. 

I  am  not  pleading  so  much  for  these  boys  as  I  am  for 
the  infinite  number  of  others  to  follow,  those  who  per¬ 
haps  cannot  be  as  well  defended  as  these  have  been,  those 
who  may  go  down  in  the  storm,  and  the  tempest,  without 
aid.  It  is  of  them  I  am  thinking,  and  for  them  I  am 
begging  of  this  court  not  to  turn  backward  toward  the 
barbarous  and  cruel  Dast. 


52 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


Now,  your  Honor,  who  are  these  two  boys? 

Leopold,  with  a  wonderfully  brilliant  mind;  Loeb, 
with  an  unusual  intelligence; — both  from  their  very 
youth  crowded  like  hothouse  plants,  to  learn  more  and 
more  and  more.  Dr.  Krohn  says  that  they  are  intelli¬ 
gent.  In  spite  of  that,  it  is  true: — they  are  unusually 
intelligent.  But  it  takes  something  besides  brains  to 
make  a  human  being  who  can  adjust  himself  to  life. 

In  fact,  as  Dr.  Church  and  as  Dr.  Singer  regretfully 
admitted,  brains  are  not  the  chief  essential  in  human  con¬ 
duct.  There  is  no  question  about  it.  The  emotions  are 
the  urge  that  make  us  live;  the  urge  that  makes  us  work 
or  play,  or  move  along  the  pathways  of  life.  They  are 
the  instinctive  things.  In  fact,  intellect  is  a  late  devel¬ 
opment  of  life.  Long  before  it  was  evolved,  the  emo¬ 
tional  life  kept  the  organism  in  existence  until  death. 
Whatever  our  action  is,  it  comes  from  the  emotions,  and 
nobody  is  balanced  without  them. 

The  intellect  does  not  count  so  much.  Let  me  call  the 
attention  of  the  court  to  two  or  three  cases.  Four  or 
five  years  ago  the  world  was  startled  by  a  story  about 
a  boy  of  eleven,  the  youngest  boy  ever  turned  out  at 
Harvard,  who  had  studied  everything  on  earth  and 
understood  it;  he  was  simply  a  freak.  He  went  through 
Harvard  much  younger  than  anybody  else.  All  questions 
of  science  and  philosophy  he  could  discuss  with  the  most 
learned.  How  he  got  it  nobody  knows.  It  was  prophe¬ 
sied  that  he  would  have  a  brilliant  future.  I  do  not 
know  his  name,  and  it  is  not  necessary.  In  a  short  time 
the  fire  had  burned  out.  He  was  a  prodigy,  with  noth¬ 
ing  but  this  marvelous  brain  power,  which  nobody  under¬ 
stood  or  could  understand.  He  was  an  intellectual  freak. 
He  never  was  a  boy;  he  never  will  be  a  completed  normal 
man.  Harvard  had  another  of  the  same  kind  some  years 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


53 


before,  unbalanced,  impossible, — an  intellectual  ma¬ 
chine.  Nature  works  in  mysterious  ways.  We  have  all 
read  of  Blind  Tom,  who  was  an  idiot,  and  yet  a  marvel¬ 
ous  musician.  He  never  could  understand  music,  and  he 
never  did  understand  it;  he  never  knew  anything  about 
it;  and  yet  he  could  go  to  the  piano  and  play  so  well  that 
people  marveled  and  wondered.  How  it  comes  nobody 
can  explain. 

The  question  of  intellect  means  the  smallest  part  of 
life.  Back  of  this  are  man’s  nerves,  muscles,  heart, 
blood,  lungs — in  fact,  the  whole  organism;  the  brain  is 
the  least  part  in  human  development.  Without  the  emo¬ 
tion-life  man  is  nothing.  How  is  it  with  these  two  boys? 
Is  there  any  question  about  them? 

I  insist  there  is  not  the  slightest  question  about  it.  All 
teaching  and  all  training  appeals,  not  only  to  the  intel¬ 
lectual,  but  to  emotional  life.  A  child  is  born  with  no 
ideas  of  right  and  wrong,  just  with  plastic  brain,  ready 
for  such  impressions  as  come  to  it,  ready  to  be  developed. 
Lying,  stealing,  killing  are  not  wrong  to  the  child.  These 
mean  nothing. 

Gradually  his  parents  and  his  teachers  tell  him  things, 
teach  him  habits,  show'  him  that  he  may  do  this  and  he 
may  not  do  that,  teach  him  the  difference  between  his 
and  mine.  No  child  knows  this  when  he  is  born.  He 
knows  nothing  about  property  or  property  rights.  They 
are  given  to  him  as  he  goes  along.  He  is  like  the  animal 
that  wants  something  and  goes  out  and  gets  it,  kills  it, 
operating  purely  from  instinct,  without  training. 

The  child  is  gradually  taught,  and  habits  are  built  up. 
These  habits  are  supposed  to  be  strong  enough  so  that 
they  will  form  inhibitions  against  conduct  when  the  emo¬ 
tions  come  in  conflict  with  the  duties  of  life.  Dr.  Singer 
and  Dr.  Church,  both  of  them,  admitted  exactly  what  I 


54 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


• 

am  saying  now.  The  child  of  himself  knows  nothing 
about  right  and  wrong,  and  the  teachings  built  up  give 
him  habits,  so  he  will  be  able  to  control  certain  instincts 
that  surge  upon  him,  and  which  surge  upon  everyone 
who  lives.  If  the  instinct  is  strong  enough  and  the  habit 
weak  enough,  the  habit  goes  down  before  it.  Both  of 
these  eminent  men  admit  it.  There  can  be  no  question 
about  it.  His  conduct  depends  upon  the  relative  strength 
of  the  instinct  and  the  habit  that  has  been  built  up. 

Education  means  fixing  these  habits  so  deeply  in  the 
life  of  man  that  they  stand  him  in  stead  when  he  needs 
them  to  keep  him  in  the  path, — and  that  is  all  it  does 
mean.  Suppose  one  sees  a  thousand  dollar  bill  and  no¬ 
body  present.  He  may  have  the  impulse  to  take  it.  If 
he  does  not  take  it,  it  will  be  because  his  emotional 
nature  revolts  at  it,  through  habit  and  through  training. 
If  the  emotional  nature  does  not  revolt  at  it  he  will  do  it. 
That  is  why  people  do  not  commit  what  we  call  crime; 
that,  and  caution.  All  education  means  is  the  building 
of  habits  so  that  certain  conduct  revolts  you  and  stops 
you,  saves  you;  but  without  an  emotional  nature  you 
cannot  do  that.  Some  are  bom  practically  without  it. 

How  about  this  case? 

The  state  put  on  three  alienists  and  Dr.  Krohn.  Two 
of  them,  Dr.  Patrick  and  Dr.  Church  are  undoubtedly 
able  men.  One  of  them,  Dr.  Church,  is  a  man  whom  I 
have  known  for  thirty  years,  and  for  whom  I  have  the 
highest  regard. 

On  Sunday,  June  ist,  before  any  of  the  friends  of 
these  boys  or  their  counsel  could  see  them,  while  they 
were  in  the  care  of  the  State’s  Attorney’s  office,  they 
brought  them  in  to  be  examined  by  these  alienists.  I 
am  not  going  to  discuss  that  in  detail  as  I  may  later  on. 
Dr.  Patrick  said  this : 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


55 


The  only  thing  unnatural  he  noted  about  it  was  that 
they  had  no  emotional  reactions.  Dr.  Church  said  the 
same.  These  are  their  alienists,  not  ours.  These  boys 
could  tell  this  gruesome  story  without  a  change  of  counte¬ 
nance,  without  the  slightest  feelings.  There  were  no 
emotional  reactions  to  it.  What  was  the  reason?  I  do 
not  know.  How  can  I  tell  why?  I  know  what  causes 
the  emotional  life.  I  know  it  comes  from  the  nerves,  the 
muscles,  the  endocrine  glands,  the  vegetative  system.  I 
know  it  is  the  most  important  part  of  life.  I  luiow  it  is 
practically  left  out  of  some.  I  know  that  without  it  men 
cannot  live.  I  know  that  without  it  they  cannot  act  with 
the  rest.  I  know  they  cannot  feel  what  you  feel  and 
what  I  feel ;  that  they  cannot  feel  the  moral  shocks  which 
come  to  men  who  are  educated  and  who  have  not  been 
deprived  of  an  emotional  system  or  emotional  feelings. 
I  know  it,  and  every  person  who  has  honestly  studied  this 
subject  knows  it  as  well.  Is  Dickey  Loeb  to  blame  be¬ 
cause  out  of  the  infinite  forces  that  conspired  to  form 
him,  the  infinite  forces  that  were  at  work  producing  him 
ages  before  he  was  born,  that  because  out  of  these  infinite 
combinations  he  was  born  without  it?  If  he  is,  then 
there  should  be  a  new  definition  for  justice.  Is  he  to 
blame  for  what  he  did  not  have  and  never  had?  Is  he 
to  blame  that  his  machine  is  imperfect?  Who  is  to 
blame?  I  do  not  know.  I  have  never  in  my  life  been 
interested  so  much  in  fixing  blame  as  I  have  in  relieving 
people  from  blame.  I  am  not  wise  enough  to  fix  it.  I 
know  that  somewhere  in  the  past  that  entered  into  him 
something  missed.  It  may  be  defective  nerves.  It  may 
be  a  defective  heart  or  liver.  It  may  be  defective  endo¬ 
crine  glands.  I  know  it  is  something.  I  know  that 
nothing  happens  in  this  world  without  a  cause. 

I  know,  your  Honor,  that  if  you,  sitting  here  in  this 


56  PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 

court,  and  in  this  case,  had  infinite  knowledge  you  could 
lay  your  fingers  on  it,  and  I  know  you  would  not  visit 
it  on  Dickey  Loeb.  I  asked  Dr.  Church  and  I  asked  Dr. 
Singer  whether,  if  they  were  wise  enough  to  know,  they 
could  not  find  the  cause,  and  both  of  them  said  yes.  I 
know  that  they  and  Loeb  are  just  as  they  are,  and  that 
they  did  not  make  themselves.  There  are  at  least  two 
theories  of  man’s  responsibility.  There  may  be  more. 
There  is  the  old  theory  that  if  a  man  does  something  it 
is  because  he  wilfully,  purposely,  maliciously  and  with  a 
malignant  heart  sees  fit  to  do  it.  And  that  goes  back  to 
the  possession  of  man  by  devils.  The  old  indictments 
used  to  read  that  a  man  being  possessed  of  a  devil  did 
so  and  so.  But  why  was  he  possessed  with  the  devil? 
Did  he  invite  him  in?  Could  he  help  it?  Very  few 
half-civilized  people  believe  that  doctrine  any  more. 
Science  has  been  at  work,  humanity  has  been  at  work, 
scholarship  has  been  at  work,  and  intelligent  people  now 
know  that  every  human  being  is  the  product  of  the  end¬ 
less  heredity  back  of  him  and  the  infinite  environment 
around  him.  He  is  made  as  he  is  and  he  is  the  sport  of 
all  that  goes  before  him  and  is  applied  to  him,  and  under 
the  same  stress  and  storm,  you  would  act  one  way  and 
I  act  another,  and  poor  Dickey  Loeb  another. 

Dr.  Church  said  so  and  Dr.  Singer  said  so,  and  it  is  the 
truth.  Take  a  normal  boy,  your  Honor.  Do  you  sup¬ 
pose  he  could  have  taken  a  boy  into  an  automobile  with¬ 
out  any  reason  and  hit  him  over  the  head  and  killed  him? 
I  might  just  as  well  ask  you  whether  you  thought  the 
sun  could  shine  at  midnight  in  this  latitude.  It  is  not  a 
part  of  normality.  Something  was  wrong.  I  am  asking 
your  Honor  not  to  visit  the  grave  and  dire  and  terrible 
misfortunes  of  Dickey  Loeb  and  Nathan  Leopold  upon 
these  two  boys.  I  do  not  know  where  to  place  it.  I 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


57 


know  it  is  somewhere  in  the  infinite  economy  of  nature, 
and  if  I  were  wise  enough  I  could  find  it.  I  know  it  is 
there,  and  to  say  that  because  they  are  as  they  are  you 
should  hang  them,  is  brutality  and  cruelty,  and  savors 
of  the  fang  and  claw. 

There  can  be  no  question  on  the  evidence  in  this  case. 
Dr.  Church  and  Dr.  Patrick  both  testified  that  these  boys 
have  no  emotional  reactions  in  reference  to  this  crime. 
Every  one  of  the  alienists  on  both  sides  has  told  this 
court,  what  no  doubt  this  court  already  knew,  that  the 
emotions  furnish  the  urge  and  the  drive  to  life.  A  man 
can  get  along  without  his  intellect,  and  most  people  do, 
but  he  cannot  get  along  without  his  emotions.  When 
they  did  make  a  brain  for  man,  they  did  not  make  it 
good  enough  to  hurt,  because  emotions  can  still  hold 
sway.  He  eats  and  he  drinks,  he  works  and  plays  and 
sleeps,  in  obedience  to  his  emotional  system.  The  intel¬ 
lectual  part  of  man  acts  only  as  a  judge  over  his  emotions, 
and  then  he  generally  gets  it  wrong,  and  has  to  rely  on 
his  instincts  to  save  him. 

These  boys — I  do  not  care  what  their  mentality — that 
simply  makes  it  worse — are  emotionally  defective. 
Every  single  alienist  who  has  testified  in  this  case  has 
said  so.  The  only  person  who  did  not  was  Dr.  Krohn. 
While  I  am  on  that  subject,  lest  I  forget  the  eminent 
doctor,  I  want  to  refer  to  one  or  two  things.  In  the  first 
place,  all  these  alienists  that  the  State  called  came  into 
the  State’s  Attorney’s  office  and  heard  these  boys  tell 
their  story  of  this  crime,  and  that  is  all  they  heard. 

Now,  your  Honor  is  familiar  with  Chicago  the  same 
as  I  am,  and  I  am  willing  to  admit  right  here  and  now 
that  the  two  ablest  alienists  in  Chicago  are  Dr.  Church 
and  Dr.  Patrick.  There  may  be  abler  ones,  but  we  law¬ 
yers  do  not  know  them. 


58 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


And  I  will  go  further:  If  my  friend  Crowe  had  not 
got  to  them  first,  I  would  have  tried  to  get  them.  There 
is  no  question  about  it  at  all.  I  said  I  would  have  tried 
to;  I  didn’t  say  I  would,  and  yet  I  suspect  I  would.  And 
I  say  that,  your  Honor,  without  casting  the  slightest  re¬ 
flection  on  either  of  them,  for  I  really  have  a  high  regard 
for  them,  and  aside  from  that  a  deep  friendship  for  Dr. 
Church.  And,  I  have  considerable  regard  for  Dr.  Singer. 
I  will  go  no  further  now. 

We  could  not  get  them,  and  Mr.  Crowe  was  very 
wise,  and  he  deserves  a  great  deal  of  credit  for  the  in¬ 
dustry,  the  research  and  the  thoroughness  that  he  and 
his  staff  have  used  in  detecting  this  terrible  crime. 

He  worked  with  intelligence  and  rapidity.  If  here 
and  there  he  trampled  on  the  edges  of  the  constitution  I 
am  not  going  to  talk  about  it  here.  If  he  did  it,  he  is 
not  the  first  one  in  that  office  and  probably  will  not  be 
the  last  who  will  do  it,  so  let  that  go.  A  great  many 
people  in  this  world  believe  the  end  justifies  the  means. 
I  don’t  know  but  that  I  do  myself.  And  that  is  the  rea¬ 
son  I  never  want  to  take  the  side  of  the  prosecution, 
because  I  might  harm  an  individual.  I  am  sure  the  State 
will  live  anyhow. 

On  that  Sunday  afternoon  before  we  had  a  chance,  he 
got  in  two  alienists,  Church  and  Patrick,  and  also  called 
Dr.  Krohn,  and  they  sat  around  hearing  these  boys  tell 
their  stories,  and  that  is  all. 

Your  Honor,  they  were  not  holding  an  examination. 
They  were  holding  an  inquest,  and  nothing  else.  It  has 
not  the  slightest  reference  to,  or  earmarks  of,  an  examina¬ 
tion  for  sanity.  It  was  just  an  inquest;  a  little  prema¬ 
ture,  but  still  an  inquest. 

What  is  the  truth  about  it?  What  did  Patrick  say? 
He  said  that  it  was  not  a  good  opportunity  for  examina- 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


59 


tion.  What  did  Church  say?  I  read  from  his  own  book 
what  was  necessary  for  an  examination,  and  he  said  that 
it  was  not  a  good  opportunity  for  an  examination.  What 
did  Krohn  say?  “Fine — a  fine  opportunity  for  an  exam¬ 
ination,”  the  best  he  had  ever  heard  of,  or  that  ever 
anybody  had,  because,  their  souls  were  stripped  naked. 
Krohn  is  not  an  alienist.  He  is  an  orator.  He  said, 
because  their  souls  were  naked  to  them.  Well,  if 
Krohn’s  was  naked,  there  would  not  be  much  to  show. 
But  Patrick  and  Church  said  that  the  conditions  were 
unfavorable  for  an  examination,  that  they  never  would 
choose  it,  that  their  opportunities  were  poor.  And  yet 
Krohn  states  the  contrary — Krohn,  who  by  his  own  ad¬ 
missions,  for  sixteen  years  has  not  been  a  physician,  but 
has  used  a  license  for  the  sake  of  haunting  these  courts, 
civil  and  criminal,  and  going  up  and  down  the  land  ped¬ 
dling  perjury.  He  has  told  your  Honor  what  he  has  done, 
and  there  is  scarcely  a  child  on  the  street  who  does  not 
know  it,  there  is  not  a  judge  in  the  court  who  does  not 
know  it;  there  is  not  a  lawyer  at  the  bar  who  does  not 
know  it;  there  is  not  a  physician  in  Chicago  who  does 
not  know  it;  and  I  am  willing  to  stake  the  lives  of  these 
two  boys  on  the  court  knowing  it,  and  I  will  throw  my 
own  in  for  good  measure.  What  else  did  he  say,  in 
which  the  State’s  alienists  dispute  him? 

Both  of  them  say  that  these  boys  showed  no  adequate 
emotion.  Krohn  said  they  did.  One  boy  fainted.  They 
had  been  in  the  hands  of  the  State’s  Attorney  for  sixty 
hours.  They  had  been  in  the  hands  of  policemen,  law¬ 
yers,  detectives,  stenographers,  inquisitors  and  newspaper 
men  for  sixty  hours,  and  one  of  them  fainted.  Well, 
the  only  person  who  is  entirely  without  emotion  is  a 
dead  man.  You  cannot  live  without  breathing  and  some 
emotional  responses.  Krohn  says:  “Why,  Loeb  had 


6o 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE' 


emotion.  He  was  polite;  begged  our  pardon;  got  up 
from  his  chair” ;  even  Dr.  Krohn  knows  better  than  that. 
I  fancy  if  your  Honor  goes  into  an  elevator  where  there 
is  a  lady  he  takes  off  his  hat.  Is  that  out  of  emotion  for 
the  lady  or  is  it  habit?  You  say,  “Please,”  and  “thank 
you,”  because  of  habit.  Emotions  haven’t  the  slightest 
thing  to  do  with  it.  Mr.  Leopold  has  good  manners. 
Mr.  Loeb  has  good  manners.  They  have  been  taught 
them.  They  have  lived  them.  That  does  not  mean  that 
they  are  emotional.  It  means  training.  That  is  all  it 
means.  And  Dr.  Krohn  knew  it. 

Krohn  told  the  story  of  this  interview  and  he  told 
almost  twice  as  much  as  the  other  two  men  who  sat  there 
and  heard  it.  And  how  he  told  it — how  he  told  it! 

When  he  testified  my  mind  carried  me  back  to  the  time 
when  I  was  a  kid,  which  was  some  years  ago,  and  we  used 
to  eat  watermelons.  I  have  seen  little  boys  take  a  rind 
of  watermelon  and  cover  their  whole  faces  with  water, 
eat  it,  devour  it,  and  have  the  time  of  their  lives,  up  to 
their  ears  in  watermelon.  And  when  I  heard  Dr.  Krohn 
testify  in  this  case,  to  take  the  blood  of  these  two  boys, 
I  could  see  his  mouth  water  with  the  joy  it  gave  him, 
and  he  showed  all  the  delight  and  pleasure  of  myself 
and  my  young  companions  when  we  ate  watermelon. 

I  can  imagine  a  psychiatrist,  a  real  one  who  knows  the 
mechanism  of  man,  who  knows  life  and  its  machinery, 
who  knows  the  misfortunes  of  youth,  who  knows  the 
stress  and  the  strain  of  adolescence  which  comes  to  every 
boy  and  overpowers  so  many,  who  knows  the  weird  fan¬ 
tastic  world  that  hedges  around  the  life  of  a  child — I 
can  imagine  a  psychiatrist  who  might  honestly  think  that 
under  the  crude  definitions  of  the  law  the  defendants 
were  sane  and  know  the  difference  between  right  and 
wrong.  But  if  he  were  a  real  physician,  whose  mission 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  6l 

is  the  highest  that  man  can  follow,  to  save  life  and  min¬ 
ister  to  human  suffering — to  save  life  regardless  of  what 
the  life  is — to  prevent  suffering,  regardless  of  whose  suf¬ 
fering  it  is — and  no  mission  could  be  higher  than  that — 
that  if  this  was  his  mission,  instead  of  testifying  in  court; 
and  if  he  were  called  on  for  an  opinion  that  might  send 
his  fellowman  to  doom,  I  can  imagine  him  doing  it.  I 
can  imagine  him  doing  it  reluctantly,  carefully,  modestly, 
timorously,  fearfully,  and  being  careful  that  he  did  not 
turn  one  hair  to  the  right  or  left  more  than  he  should, 
and  giving  the  advantage  in  favor  of  life  and  humanity 
and  mercy,  but  I  can  never  imagine  a  real  physician  who 
cared  for  life  or  who  thought  of  anything  excepting  cash, 
gloating  over  his  testimony,  as  Dr.  Krohn  did  in  this 
case. 

Without  any  consideration  of  the  lives  and  the  train¬ 
ings  of  these  boys,  without  any  evidence  from  experts, 
I  have  tried  to  make  a  plain  statement  of  the  facts  of 
this  case,  and  I  believe,  as  I  have  said  repeatedly,  that 
no  one  can  honestly  study  the  facts  and  conclude  that 
anything  but  diseased  minds  was  responsible  for  this  ter¬ 
rible  act.  Let  us  see  how  far  we  can  account  for  it,  your 
Honor. 

So  far  we  have  determined  whether  men  are  diseased 
of  mind  or  normal  from  their  conduct  alone.  This  line 
of  conduct  shows  disease  and  that  line  of  conduct  shows 
normality.  We  have  not  been  able  with  any  satisfac¬ 
tion  to  peer  into  the  brain  and  see  its  workings;  to 
analyze  the  human  system  and  see  where  it  has  gone 
awry.  Science  is  doing  something,  but  so  far  has  done 
little,  and  we  have  been  compelled  to  make  up  our  minds 
from  conduct  as  to  the  condition  of  the  minds  of  men. 

The  mind,  of  course,  is  an  illusive  thing.  Whether  it 
exists  or  not  no  one  can  tell.  It  cannot  be  found  as  you 


62 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


find  the  brain.  Its  relation  to  the  brain  and  the  nervous 
system  is  uncertain.  It  simply  means  the  activity  of  the 
body,  which  is  co-ordinated  with  the  brain.  But  when 
we  do  find  from  human  conduct  that  we  believe  there  is 
a  diseased  mind,  we  naturally  speculate  on  how  it  came 
about.  And  we  wish  to  find  always,  if  possible,  the 
reason  why  it  is  so.  We  may  find  it;  we  may  not  find  it; 
because  the  unknown  is  infinitely  wider  and  larger  than 
the  known,  both  as  to  the  human  mind  and  as  to  almost 
everything  else  in  the  Universe. 

It  has  not  been  so  very  long  since  the  insane  were  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  possessed  of  devils,  and  since  criminals  were 
supposed  to  be  possessed  of  devils,  when  wise  men  solved 
intricate  questions  by  saying  that  devils  possessed  human 
beings.  It  has  not  been  so  very  long  since  it  was  sup¬ 
posed  that  diseased  persons  were  possessed  of  devils, 
which  must  be  driven  out  to  cure  the  disease.  We  have 
gone  further  than  this.  We  understand  that  there  is 
some  connection  between  the  workings  of  the  mind  and 
the  working  of  the  body.  We  understand  something  of 
the  physical  basis  of  life.  We  understand  something  of 
the  intricate  mechanism  which  may  fail  in  some  minute 
part  and  cause  such  serious  havoc  in  human  conduct. 

I  have  tried  to  study  the  lives  of  these  twm  most  unfor¬ 
tunate  boys.  Three  months  ago,  if  their  friends  and  the 
friends  of  the  family  had  been  asked  to  pick  out  the 
most  promising  lads  of  their  acquaintance,  they  prob¬ 
ably  would  have  picked  these  two  boys.  With  every 
opportunity,  with  plenty  of  wealth,  they  would  have 
said  that  those  two  would  succeed. 

In  a  day,  by  an  act  of  madness,  all  this  is  destroyed, 
until  the  best  they  can  hope  for  now  is  a  life  of  silence 
and  pain,  continuing  to  the  end  of  their  years. 

How  did  it  happen? 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


63 


Let  us  take  Dickie  Loeb  first. 

I  do  not  claim  to  know  how  it  happened;  I  have  sought 
to  find  out.  I  know  that  something,  or  some  combina¬ 
tion  of  things,  is  responsible  for  his  mad  act.  I  know 
that  there  are  no  accidents  in  nature.  I  know  that  effect 
follows  cause.  I  know  that,  if  I  were  wise  enough,  and 
knew  enough  about  this  case,  I  could  lay  my  finger  on 
the  cause.  I  will  do  the  best  I  can,  but  it  is  largely 
speculation. 

The  child,  of  course,  is  born  without  knowledge. 

Impressions  are  made  upon  its  mind  as  it  goes  along. 
Dickie  Loeb  was  a  child  of  wealth  and  opportunity. 
Over  and  over  in  this  court  your  Honor  has  been  asked, 
and  other  courts  have  been  asked,  to  consider  boys  who 
have  no  chance;  they  have  been  asked  to  consider  the 
poor,  whose  home  had  been  the  street,  with  no  education 
and  no  opportunity  in  life,  and  they  have  done  it,  and 
done  it  rightfully. 

But  your  Honor,  it  is  just  as  often  a  great  misfortune 
to  be  the  child  of  the  rich  as  it  is  to  be  the  child  of  the 
poor.  Wealth  has  its  misfortunes.  Too  much,  too  great 
opportunity  and  advantage  given  to  a  child  has  its  mis¬ 
fortunes,  and  I  am  asking  your  Honor  to  consider  the 
rich  as  well  as  the  poor  (and  nothing  else).  Can  I  find 
what  was  wrong4?  I  think  I  can.  Here  was  a  boy  at  a 
tender  age,  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  governess,  intellec¬ 
tual,  vigorous,  devoted,  with  a  strong  ambition  for  the 
welfare  of  this  boy.  He  was  pushed  in  his  studies,  as 
plants  are  forced  in  hot  houses.  He  had  no  pleasures, 
such  as  a  boy  should  have,  except  as  they  were  gained 
by  lying  and  cheating.  Now,  I  am  not  criticising  the 
nurse.  I  suggest  that  some  day  your  Honor  look  at  her 
nicture.  It  explains  her  fully.  Forceful,  brooking  no 
nterference,  she  loved  the  boy,  and  her  ambition  was 


64 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


that  he  should  reach  the  highest  perfection.  No  time  to 
pause,  no  time  to  stop  from  one  book  to  another,  no  time 
to  have  those  pleasures  which  a  boy  ought  to  have  to 
create  a  normal  life.  And  what  happened?  Your 
Honor,  what  would  happen?  Nothing  strange  or  un¬ 
usual.  This  nurse  was  with  him  all  the  time,  except 
when  he  stole  out  at  night,  from  two  to  fourteen  years 
of  age,  and  it  is  instructive  to  read  her  letter  to  show  her 
attitude.  It  speaks  volumes;  tells  exactly  the  relation 
between  these  two  people.  He,  scheming  and  planning 
as  healthy  boys  would  do,  to  get  out  from  under  her 
restraint.  She,  putting  before  him  the  best  books,  which 
children  generally  do  not  want;  and  he,  when  she  was 
not  looking,  reading  detective  stories,  which  he  devoured, 
story  after  story,  in  his  young  life.  Of  all  of  this  there 
can  be  no  question.  What  is  the  result?  Every  story 
he  read  was  a  story  of  crime.  We  have  a  statute  in  this 
state,  passed  only  last  year,  if  I  recall  it,  which  forbids 
minors  reading  stories  of  crime.  Why?  There  is  only 
one  reason.  Because  the  legislature  in  its  wisdom  felt 
that  it  would  produce  criminal  tendencies  in  the  boys 
who  read  them.  The  legislature  of  this  state  has  given 
its  opinion,  and  forbidden  boys  to  read  these  books.  He 
read  them  day  after  day.  He  never  stopped.  While 
he  was  passing  through  college  at  Ann  Arbor  he  was  still 
reading  them.  When  he  was  a  senior  he  read  them,  and 
almost  nothing  else. 

Now,  these  facts  are  beyond  dispute.  He  early  devel¬ 
oped  the  tendency  to  mix  with  crime,  to  be  a  detective; 
as  a  little  boy  shadowing  people  on  the  street;  as  a  little 
child  going  out  with  his  phantasy  of  being  the  head  of  £ 
band  of  criminals  and  directing  them  on  the  street.  Hov 
did  this  grow  and  develop  in  him?  Let  us  see.  It  seem: 
to  me  as  natural  as  the  day  following  the  night.  Even 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


65 


detective  story  is  a  story  of  a  sleuth  getting  the  best  of 
it;  trailing  some  unfortunate  individual  through  devious 
ways  until  his  victim  is  finally  landed  in  jail  or  stands 
on  the  gallows.  They  all  show  how  smart  the  detective 
is,  and  where  the  criminal  himself  falls  down. 

This  boy  early  in  his  life  conceived  the  idea  that  there 
could  be  a  perfect  crime,  one  that  nobody  could  ever 
detect;  that  there  could  be  one  where  the  detective  did 
not  land  his  game ;  a  perfect  crime.  He  had  been  inter¬ 
ested  in  the  story  of  Charley  Ross,  who  was  kidnapped. 
He  was  interested  in  these  things  all  his  life.  He  be¬ 
lieved  in  his  childish  way  that  a  crime  could  be  so  care¬ 
fully  planned  that  there  would  be  no  detection,  and  his 
idea  was  to  plan  and  accomplish  a  perfect  crime.  It 
would  involve  kidnapping,  and  involve  murder.  I  might 
digress  here  just  a  moment,  because  my  friend  Savage 
spoke  about  two  crimes  that  were  committed  here — kid¬ 
naping  and  murder.  That  is,  the  court  should  hang 
them  twice — once  for  each.  There  are  more  than  two 
committed  here.  There  are  more  than  two  crimes  com¬ 
mitted  in  almost  every  capital  act. 

An  attempt  to  extort  money  was  committed.  A  con¬ 
spiracy  to  do  each  one  was  committed.  Carrying  fire¬ 
arms  was  committed.  I  could  probably  mention  half  a 
dozen  if  I  tried,  but  it  is  all  one  thing,  and  counsel  knows 
it  is  all  one  thing. 

Is  this  anything  new  in  criminal  practice? 

Why,  your  Honor,  we  have  it  every  day  in  these  courts. 
In  almost  any  important  crime  the  State’s  Attorney  can 
write  indictments  as  long  as  the  paper  lasts,  not  only 
counts,  but  indictments.  Take  a  case  of  burning  a  build¬ 
ing  for  insurance.  (Two  people).  There  is  the  crime 
of  arson.  There  is  the  crime  of  burning  a  building  to 
defraud  an  insurance  company.  There  is  conspiracy  to 


66 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


commit  arson.  There  is  conspiracy  to  burn  a  building 
to  defraud  an  insurance  company.  And  I  might  men¬ 
tion  others,  all  in  the  one  act.  Burglary  and  larceny 
includes  a  number  of  crimes,  especially  if  there  are  two 
or  more  persons  involved.  It  is  nothing  new.  This  was 
really  one  offense  and  one  only.  They  could  have  made 
six  out  of  it,  or  one  out  of  it,  or  two  out  of  it.  But  it  is 
only  one  thing.  Just  like  any  other  important  crime. 

They  wanted  to  commit  a  perfect  crime.  There  had 
been  growing  in  his  brain,  dwarfed  and  twisted — as  every 
act  in  this  case  shows  it  to  have  been  dwarfed  and  twisted 
— there  had  been  growing  this  scheme,  not  due  to  any 
wickedness  of  Dickie  Loeb,  for  he  is  a  child.  It  grew  as 
he  grew;  it  grew  from  those  around  him;  it  grew  from  the 
lack  of  the  proper  training  until  it  possessed  him.  He  be¬ 
lieved  he  could  beat  the  police.  He  believed  he  could 
plan  the  perfect  crime.  He  had  thought  of  it  and  talked 
of  it  for  years.  Had  talked  of  it  as  a  child;  had  worked 
at  it  as  a  child,  and  this  sorry  act  of  his,  utterly  irrational 
and  motiveless,  a  plan  to  commit  a  perfect  crime  which 
must  contain  kidnaping,  and  there  must  be  ransom,  or 
else  it  could  not  be  perfect,  and  they  must  get  the  money. 

The  state  itself  in  opening  this  case  said  that  it  was 
largely  for  experience  and  for  a  thrill,  which  it  was.  In 
the  end  the  state  switched  it  on  to  the  foolish  reason  of 
getting  cash. 

Every  fact  in  this  case  shows  that  cash  had  almost 
nothing  to  do  with  it,  except  as  a  factor  in  the  perfect 
crime;  and  to  commit  the  perfect  crime  there  must  be  a 
kidnaping,  and  a  kidnaping  where  they  could  get  money, 
and  that  was  all  there  was  of  it.  Now,  these  are  the  two 
theories  of  this  case,  and  I  submit,  your  Honor,  under 
the  facts  in  this  case,  that  there  can  be  no  question  but 
that  we  are  right.  This  phantasy  grew  in  the  mind  of 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  67 

Dickie  Loeb  almost  before  he  began  to  read.  It  devel¬ 
oped  as  a  child  just  as  kleptomania  has  developed  in 
many  a  person  and  is  clearly  recognized  by  the  courts. 
He  went  from  one  thing  to  another — in  the  main  insig¬ 
nificant,  childish  things.  Then,  the  utterly  foolish  and 
stupid  and  unnecessary  thing  of  going  to  Ann  Arbor  to 
steal  from  a  fraternity  house,  a  fraternity  of  which  he 
was  a  member.  And,  finally,  the  planning  for  this  crime. 
Murder  was  the  least  part  of  it;  to  kidnap  and  get  the 
money,  and  kill  in  connection  with  it ;  that  was  the  child¬ 
ish  scheme  growing  up  in  these  childish  minds.  And 
they  had  it  in  mind  for  five  or  six  months — planning 
what?  Planning  where  every  step  was  foolish  and 
childish;  acts  that  could  have  been  planned  in  an  hour 
or  a  day;  planning  this,  and  then  planning  that,  chang¬ 
ing  this  and  changing  that;  the  weird  actions  of  two 
mad  brains. 

Counsel  have  laughed  at  us  for  talking  about  phan¬ 
tasies  and  hallucinations.  They  have  laughed  at  us  in 
one  breath,  but  admitted  it  in  another.  Let  us  look  at 
that  for  a  moment,  your  Honor.  Your  Honor  has  been 
a  child.  I  well  remember  that  I  have  been  a  child.  And 
while  youth  has  its  advantages,  it  has  its  grievous  trou¬ 
bles.  There  is  an  old  prayer,  ‘Though  I  grow  old  in 
years,  let  me  keep  the  heart  of  a  child.’  The  heart  of  a 
child  with  its  abundant  life,  its  disregard  for  conse¬ 
quences,  its  living  in  the  moment,  and  for  the  moment 
alone;  its  lack  of  responsibility,  and  its  freedom  from 
care. 

The  law  knows  and  has  recognized  childhood  for  many 
and  many  a  long  year.  What  do  we  know  about  child¬ 
hood?  The  brain  of  the  child  is  the  home  of  dreams, 
of  castles,  of  visions,  of  illusions  and  of  delusions.  In 
fact,  there  could  be  no  childhood  without  delusions,  for 


68 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


delusions  are  always  more  alluring  than  facts.  Delusions, 
dreams  and  hallucinations  are  a  part  of  the  warp  and 
woof  of  childhood.  You  know  it  and  I  know  it.  I 
remember,  when  I  was  a  child,  the  men  seemed  as  tall 
as  the  trees,  the  trees  as  tall  as  the  mountains.  I  can 
remember  very  well  when,  as  a  little  boy,  I  swam  the 
deepest  spot  in  the  river  for  the  first  time.  I  swam 
breathlessly,  and  landed  with  as  much  sense  of  glory  and 
triumph  as  Julius  Caesar  felt  when  he  led  his  army  across 
the  Rubicon.  I  have  been  back  since,  and  I  can  almost 
step  across  the  same  place,  but  it  seemed  an  ocean  then. 
And  those  men  whom  I  thought  were  so  wonderful  were 
dead  and  left  nothing  behind.  I  had  lived  in  a  dream. 
I  had  never  known  the  real  world  which  I  met,  to  my 
discomfort  and  despair,  and  that  dispelled  the  illusions 
of  my  youth. 

The  whole  life  of  childhood  is  a  dream  and  an  illusion, 
and  whether  they  take  one  shape  or  another  shape  de¬ 
pends  not  upon  the  dreamy  boy  but  on  what  surrounds 
him.  As  well  might  I  have  dreamed  of  burglars  and 
wished  to  be  one  as  to  dream  of  policemen  and  wished 
to  be  one.  Perhaps  I  was  lucky,  too,  that  I  had  no 
money.  We  have  grown  to  think  that  the  misfortune  is 
in  not  having  it.  The  great  misfortune  in  this  terrible 
case  is  the  money.  That  has  destroyed  their  lives.  That 
has  fostered  these  illusions.  That  has  promoted  this  mad 
act.  And,  if  your  Honor  shall  doom  them  to  die,  it  will 
be  because  they  are  the  sons  of  the  rich. 

Do  you  suppose  that  if  they  lived  up  here  on  the 
Northwest  Side  and  had  no  money,  with  the  evidence  as 
clear  in  this  case  as  it  is,  that  any  human  being  would 
want  to  hang  them?  Excessive  wealth  is  a  grievous 
misfortune  in  every  step  in  life.  When  I  hear  foolish 
people,  when  I  read  malicious  newspapers  talking  of 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


09 


excessive  fees  in  this  case,  it  makes  me  ill.  That  there 
is  nothing  bigger  in  life,  that  it  is  presumed  that  no 
man  lives  to  whom  money  is  not  the  first  concern,  that 
human  instincts,  sympathy  and  kindness  and  charity 
and  logic  can  only  be  used  for  cash.  It  shows  how 
deeply  money  has  corrupted  the  hearts  of  most  men. 

Now,  to  get  back  to  Dickie  Loeb.  He  was  a  child. 
The  books  he  read  by  day  were  not  the  books  he  read  by 
night.  We  are  all  of  us  moulded  somewhat  by  the  in¬ 
fluences  around  us  (and  of  those),  to  people  who  read, 
perhaps  books  are  the  greatest  and  the  strongest  influ¬ 
ences. 

I  know  where  my  life  has  been  moulded  by  books, 
amongst  other  things.  We  all  know  where  our  lives 
have  been  influenced  by  books.  The  nurse,  strict  and 
jealous  and  watchful,  gave  him  one  kind  of  books;  by 
night  he  would  steal  off  and  read  the  other. 

Which,  think  you,  shaped  the  life  of  Dickie  Loeb? 
Is  there  any  kind  of  question  about  it?  A  child:  Was 
it  pure  maliciousness?  Was  a  boy  of  five  or  six  or  seven 
to  blame  for  it?  Where  did  he  get  it?  He  got  it  where 
we  all  get  our  ideas,  and  these  books  became  a  part  of 
his  dreams  and  a  part  of  his  life,  and  as  he  grew  up  his 
visions  grew  to  hallucinations. 

He  went  out  on  the  street  and  fantastically  directed 
his  companions,  who  were  not  there,  in  their  various 
moves  to  complete  the  perfect  crime.  Can  there  be  any 
sort  of  question  about  it? 

Suppose,  your  Honor,  that  instead  of  this  boy  being 
here  in  this  court,  under  the  plea  of  the  state  that  your 
Honor  shall  pronounce  a  sentence  to  hang  him  by  the 
neck  until  dead,  he  had  been  taken  to  a  pathological 
hospital  to  be  analyzed,  and  the  physicians  had  inquired 
into  his  case,  what  would  they  have  said?  There  is 


70 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSB 


only  one  thing  that  they  could  possibly  have  said.  They 
would  have  traced  everything  back  to  the  gradual 
growth  of  the  child. 

That  is  not  all  there  is  about  it.  Youth  is  hard  enough. 
The  only  good  thing  about  youth  is  that  it  has  no  thought 
and  no  care;  and  how  blindly  we  can  do  things  when 
we  are  young! 

Where  is  the  man  who  has  not  been  guilty  of  delin¬ 
quencies  in  youth?  Let  us  be  honest  with  ourselves. 
Let  us  look  into  our  own  hearts.  How  many  men  are 
there  today — lawyers  and  congressmen  and  judges,  and 
even  state’s  attorneys — who  have  not  been  guilty  of 
some  mad  act  in  youth?  And  if  they  did  not  get  caught, 
or  the  consequences  were  trivial,  it  was  their  good  for¬ 
tune. 

We  might  as  well  be  honest  with  ourselves,  your 
Honor.  Before  I  would  tie  a  noose  around  the  neck  of  a 
boy  I  would  try  to  call  back  into  my  mind  the  emotions 
of  youth.  I  would  try  to  remember  what  the  world 
looked  like  to  me  when  I  was  a  child.  I  would  try  to 
remember  how  strong  were  these  instinctive,  persistent 
emotions  that  moved  my  life.  I  would  try  to  remember 
how  weak  and  inefficient  was  youth  in  the  presence  of 
the  surging,  controlling  feelings  of  the  child.  One  that 
honestly  remembers  and  asks  himself  the  question  and 
tries  to  unlock  the  door  that  he  thinks  is  closed,  and  calls 
back  the  boy,  can  understand  the  boy. 

But,  your  Honor,  that  is  not  all  there  is  to  boyhood. 
Nature  is  strong  and  she  is  pitiless.  She  works  in  her 
own  mysterious  way,  and  we  are  her  victims.  We  have 
not  much  to  do  with  it  ourselves.  Nature  takes  this 
job  in  hand,  and  we  play  our  parts.  In  the  words  of  old 
Omar  Khayaam,  we  are  only 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  71 

“Impotent  pieces  in  the  game  He  plays 
Upon  this  checkerboard  of  nights  and  days, 

Hither  and  thither  moves,  and  checks,  and  slays, 
And  one  by  one  back  in  the  closet  lays.” 

What  had  this  boy  to  do  with  it?  He  was  not  his  own 
father;  he  was  not  his  own  mother;  he  was  not  his  own 
grandparents.  All  of  this  was  handed  to  him.  He  did 
not  surround  himself  with  governesses  and  wealth.  He 
did  not  make  himself.  And  yet  he  is  to  be  compelled  to 
pay. 

There  was  a  time  in  England,  running  down  as  late 
as  the  beginning  of  the  last  century,  when  judges  used 
to  convene  court  and  call  juries  to  try  a  horse,  a  dog,  a 
pig,  for  crime.  I  have  in  my  library  a  story  of  a  judge 
and  jury  and  lawyers  trying  and  convicting  an  old  sow 
for  lying  down  on  her  ten  pigs  and  killing  them. 

What  does  it  mean?  Animals  were  tried.  Do  you 
mean  to  tell  me  that  Dickie  Loeb  had  any  more  to  do 
with  his  making  than  any  other  product  of  heredity  that 
is  born  upon  the  earth  ? 

At  this  period  of  life  it  is  not  enough  to  take  a  boy 
— your  Honor,  I  wish  I  knew  when  to  stop  talking  about 
this  question  that  always  has  interested  me  so  much — 
it  is  not  enough  to  take  a  boy  filled  with  his  dreams  and 
his  phantasies  and  living  in  an  unreal  world,  but  the 
age  of  adolescence  comes  on  him  with  all  the  rest. 

What  does  he  know?  Both  these  boys  are  in  the 
adolescent  age;  both  these  boys,  as  every  alienist  in  this 
case  on  both  sides  tells  you,  are  in  the  most  trying  period 
of  the  life  of  a  child;  both  these  boys,  when  the  call  of 
sex  is  new  and  strange;  both  these  boys,  at  a  time  seek¬ 
ing  to  adjust  their  young  lives  to  the  world,  moved  by 
the  strongest  feelings  and  passions  that  have  ever  moved 


72 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


men;  both  these  boys,  at  the  time  boys  grow  insane,  at 
the  time  crimes  are  committed;  all  of  this  is  added  to  all 
the  rest  of  the  vagaries  of  their  lives.  Shall  we  charge 
them  with  full  responsibility  that  we  may  have  a  hang¬ 
ing?  That  we  may  deck  Chicago  in  a  holiday  garb  and 
let  the  people  have  their  fill  of  blood;  that  you  may  put 
stains  upon  the  heart  of  every  man,  woman  and  child  on 
that  day,  and  that  the  dead  walls  of  Chicago  will  tell  the 
story  of  the  shedding  of  their  blood? 

For  God’s  sake,  are  we  crazy?  In  the  face  of  history, 
of  every  line  of  philosophy,  against  the  teaching  of  every 
religionist  and  seer  and  prophet  the  world  has  ever  given 
us,  we  are  still  doing  what  our  barbaric  ancestors  did 
when  they  came  out  of  the  caves  and  the  woods. 

From  the  age  of  fifteen  to  the  age  of  twenty  or  twenty- 
one,  the  child  has  the  burden  of  adolescence,  of  puberty 
and  sex  thrust  upon  him.  Girls  are  kept  at  home  and 
carefully  watched.  Boys  without  instruction  are  left  to 
work  the  period  out  for  themselves.  It  may  lead  to 
excess.  It  may  lead  to  disgrace.  It  may  lead  to  per¬ 
version.  Who  is  to  blame?  Who  did  it?  Did  Dickie 
Loeb  do  it? 

Your  Honor,  I  am  almost  ashamed  to  talk  about  it. 
I  can  hardly  imagine  that  we  are  in  the  20th  Century. 
And  yet  there  are  men  who  seriously  say  that  for  what 
Nature  has  done,  for  what  life  has  done,  for  what  train¬ 
ing  has  done,  you  should  hang  these  boys. 

Now,  there  is  no  mystery  about  this  case,  your  Honor. 
I  seem  to  be  criticising  their  parents.  They  had  parents 
who  were  kind  and  good  and  wise  in  their  way.  But  I 
say  to  you  seriously  that  the  parents  are  more  responsible 
than  these  boys.  And  yet  few  boys  had  better  parents. 

Your  Honor,  it  is  the  easiest  thing  in  the  world  to  be 
a  parent.  We  talk  of  motherhood,  and  yet  every  woman 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


73 


can  be  a  mother.  We  talk  of  fatherhood,  and  yet  every 
man  can  be  a  father.  Nature  takes  care  of  that.  It  is 
easy  to  be  a  parent.  But  to  be  wise  and  far  seeing 
enough  to  understand  the  boy  is  another  thing;  only  a 
very  few  so  wise  and  so  far  seeing  as  that.  When  I  think 
of  the  light  way  nature  has  of  picking  out  parents  and 
populating  the  earth,  having  them  bom  and  die,  I  cannot 
hold  human  beings  to  the  same  degree  of  responsibility 
that  young  lawyers  hold  them  when  they  are  enthusiastic 
in  a  prosecution.  I  know  what  it  means.  I  know  there 
are  no  better  citizens  in  Chicago  than  the  fathers  of  these 
poor  boys. 

I  know  there  were  no  better  women  than  their  mothers. 
But  I  am  going  to  be  honest  with  this  court,  if  it  is  at 
the  expense  of  both.  I  know  that  oiec  of  two  things 
happened  to  Richard  Loeb;  that  this  terrible  crime  was 
inherent  in  his  organism,  and  came  from  some  ancestor, 
or  that  it  came  through  his  education  and  his  training 
after  he  was  bom.  Do  I  need  to  prove  it?  Judge  Crowe 
said  at  one  point  in  this  case,  when  some  witness  spoke 
about  their  wealth,  that  ‘‘probably  that  was  responsible.” 

To  believe  that  any  boy  is  responsible  for  himself  or 
his  early  training  is  an  absurdity  that  no  lawyer  or  judge 
should  be  guilty  of  today.  Somewhere  this  came  to  this 
boy.  If  his  failing  came  from  his  heredity,  I  do  not 
know  where  or  how.  None  of  us  are  bred  perfect  and 
pure,  and  the  color  of  our  hair,  the  color  of  our  eyes,  our 
stature,  the  weight  and  fineness  of  our  brain,  and  every¬ 
thing  about  us  could,  with  full  knowledge,  be  traced  with 
absolute  certainty  to  somewhere;  if  we  had  the  pedigree 
it  could  be  traced  just  the  same  in  a  boy  as  it  could  be 
in  a  dog,  a  horse  or  cow. 

I  do  not  know  what  remote  ancestors  may  have  sent 
down  the  seed  that  corrupted  him,  and  I  do  not  know 


74 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


through  how  many  ancestors  it  may  have  passed  until  it 
reached  Dickie  Loeb. 

All  I  know  is  that  it  is  true,  and  there  is  not  a  biologist 
in  the  world  who  will  not  say  that  I  am  right. 

If  it  did  not  come  that  way,  then  I  know  that  if  he 
was  normal,  if  he  had  been  understood,  if  he  had  been 
trained  as  he  should  have  been  it  would  not  have  hap¬ 
pened.  Not  that  anybody  may  not  slip,  but  I  know  it 
and  your  Honor  knows  it,  and  every  school  house  and 
every  church  in  the  land  is  an  evidence  of  it.  Else  why 
build  them? 

Every  effort  to  protect  society  is  an  effort  toward 
training  the  youth  to  keep  the  path.  Every  bit  of  train¬ 
ing  in  the  world  proves  it,  and  it  likewise  proves  that  it 
sometimes  fails.  I  know  that  if  this  boy  had  been  under¬ 
stood  and  properly  trained — properly  for  him — and  the 
training  that  he  got  might  have  been  the  very  best  for 
someone  else;  but  if  it  had  been  the  proper  training  for 
him  he  would  not  be  in  this  court  room  today  with  the 
noose  above  his  head.  If  there  is  responsibility  any¬ 
where,  it  is  back  of  him;  somewhere  in  the  infinite  num¬ 
ber  of  his  ancestors,  or  in  his  surroundings,  or  in  both. 
And  I  submit,  your  Honor,  that  under  every  principle 
of  natural  justice,  under  every  principle  of  conscience,  of 
right,  and  of  law,  he  should  not  be  made  responsible  for 
the  acts  of  someone  else. 

I  say  this  again,  without  finding  fault  with  his  parents, 
for  whom  I  have  the  highest  regard,  and  wrho  doubtless 
did  the  best  they  could.  They  might  have  done  better 
if  they  had  not  had  so  much  money.  I  do  not  know. 
Great  wealth  often  curses  all  who  touch  it. 

This  boy  was  sent  to  school.  His  mind  worked;  his 
emotions  were  dead.  He  could  learn  books,  but  he  read 
detectives  stories.  There  never  was  a  time  since  he  was 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


75 


old  enough  to  move  back  and  forth,  according  to  what 
seemed  to  be  his  volition,  when  he  was  not  haunted  with 
these  phantasies. 

The  state  made  fun  of  Dr.  White,  the  ablest  and,  I 
believe,  the  best  psychiatrist  in  America  today,  for  speak¬ 
ing  about  this  boy’s  mind  running  back  to  the  Teddy 
bears  he  used  to  play  with,  and  in  addressing  somebody 
he  was  wont  to  say,  “You  know,  Teddy - ” 

Well,  your  Honor,  is  it  nothing  but  the  commonplace 
action  of  the  commonplace  child  or  the  ordinary  man? 
A  set  of  emotions,  thoughts,  feelings  take  possession  of 
the  mind  and  we  find  them  recurring  and  recurring  over 
and  over  again. 

I  catch  myself  many  and  many  a  time  repeating 
phrases  of  my  childhood,  and  I  have  not  quite  got  into 
my  second  childhood  yet.  I  have  caught  myself  doing 
this  while  I  still  could  catch  myself.  It  means  nothing. 
We  may  have  all  the  dreams  and  visions  and  build  all 
the  castles  we  wish,  but  the  castles  of  youth  should  be 
discarded  with  youth,  and  when  they  linger  to  the  time 
when  boys  should  think  wfiser  things,  then  it  indicates  a 
diseased  mind.  “When  I  v/as  young  I  thought  as  a 
child,  I  spoke  as  a  child,  I  understood  as  a  child ;  but  now 
I  have  put  off  childish  things,”  said  the  Psalmist  twenty 
centuries  ago.  It  is  when  these  dreams  of  boyhood,  these 
phantasies  of  youth  still  linger,  and  the  growing  boy  is 
still  a  child — a  child  in  emotion,  a  child  in  feeling,  a 
child  in  hallucinations — that  you  can  say  that  it  is  the 
dreams  and  the  hallucinations  of  childhood  that  are 
responsible  for  his  conduct.  There  is  not  an  act  in  all 
this  horrible  tragedy  that  was  not  the  act  of  a  child,  the 
act  of  a  child  wandering  around  in  the  morning  of  life, 
moved  by  the  new  feelings  of  a  boy,  moved  by  the  un¬ 
controlled  impulses  which  his  teaching  v/as  not  strong 


76 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


enough  to  take  care  of,  moved  by  the  dreams  and  the 
hallucinations  which  haunt  the  brain  of  a  child.  I  say, 
your  Honor,  that  it  would  be  the  height  of  cruelty,  of 
injustice,  of  wrong  and  barbarism  to  visit  the  penalty 
upon  this  poor  boy. 

Your  Honor,  again  I  want  to  say  that  all  parents  can 
be  criticized;  likewise  grandparents  and  teachers.  Science 
is  not  so  much  interested  in  criticism  as  in  finding  causes. 
Some  time  education  will  be  more  scientific.  Some  time 
we  will  try  to  know  the  boy  before  we  educate  him  and 
as  we  educate  him.  Some  time  we  will  try  to  know  what 
will  fit  the  individual  boy,  instead  of  putting  all  boys 
through  the  same  course,  regardless  of  what  they  are. 

This  boy  needed  more  of  home,  more  love,  more  di¬ 
recting.  He  needed  to  have  his  emotions  awakened.  He 
needed  guiding  hands  along  the  serious  road  that  youth 
must  travel.  Had  these  been  given  him,  he  would  not  be 
here  today.  Now,  your  Honor,  I  want  to  speak  of  the 
other  lad,  Babe. 

Babe  is  somewhat  older  than  Dick,  and  is  a  boy  of 
remarkable  mind — away  beyond  his  years.  He  is  a  sort 
of  freak  in  this  direction,  as  in  others;  a  boy  without 
emotions,  a  boy  obsessed  of  philosophy,  a  boy  obsessed 
of  learning,  busy  every  minute  of  his  life. 

He  went  through  school  quickly;  he  went  to  college 
young;  he  could  learn  faster  than  almost  everybody  else. 
His  emotional  life  was  lacking,  as  every  alienist  and  wit¬ 
ness  in  this  case  excepting  Dr.  Krohn  has  told  you.  He 
was  just  a  half  boy,  an  intellect,  an  intellectual  machine 
going  without  balance  and  without  a  governor,  seeking 
to  find  out  everything  there  was  in  life  intellectually; 
seeking  to  solve  every  philosophy,  but  using  his  intellect 
only. 

Of  course  his  family  did  not  understand  him;  few 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  77 

men  would.  His  mother  died  when  he  was  young;  he 
had  plenty  of  money;  everything  was  given  to  him  that 
he  wanted.  Both  these  boys  with  unlimited  money ;  both 
these  boys  with  automobiles;  both  of  these  boys  with 
every  luxury  around  them  and  in  front  of  them.  They 
grew  up  in  this  environment. 

Babe  took  up  philosophy.  I  call  him  Babe,  not  be¬ 
cause  I  want  it  to  affect  your  Honor,  but  because  every¬ 
body  else  does.  He  is  the  youngest  of  the  family  and  I 
suppose  that  is  why  he  got  his  nickname.  We  will  call 
him  a  man.  Mr.  Crowe  thinks  it  is  easier  to  hang  a 
man  than  a  boy,  and  so  I  will  call  him  a  man  if  I  can 
think  of  it. 

He  grew  up  in  this  way.  He  became  enamoured  of 
the  philosophy  of  Nietzsche. 

Your  Honor,  I  have  read  almost  everything  that 
Nietzsche  ever  wrote.  He  was  a  man  of  a  wonderful 
intellect;  the  most  original  philosopher  of  the  last 
century.  A  man  who  probably  has  made  a  deeper  im¬ 
print  on  philosophy  than  any  other  man  within  a  hun¬ 
dred  years,  whether  right  or  wrong.  More  books  have 
been  written  about  him  than  probably  all  the  rest  of  the 
philosophers  in  a  hundred  years.  More  college  professors 
have  talked  about  him.  In  a  way  he  has  reached  more 
people,  and  still  he  has  been  a  philosopher  of  what  we 
might  call  the  intellectual  cult.  Nietzsche  believed  that 
some  time  the  superman  would  be  bom,  that  evolution 
was  working  toward  the  superman. 

He  wrote  one  book,  “Beyond  Good  and  Evil,”  which 
was  a  criticism  of  all  moral  codes  as  the  world  under¬ 
stands  them;  a  treatise  holding  that  the  intelligent  man 
is  beyond  good  and  evil;  that  the  laws  for  good  and  the 
laws  for  evil  do  not  apply  to  those  who  approach  the 
superman.  He  wrote  on  the  will  to  power.  He  wrote 


78 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


some  ten  or  fifteen  volumes  on  his  various  philosophical 
ideas.  Nathan  Leopold  is  not  the  only  boy  who  has 
read  Nietzsche.  He  may  be  the  only  one  who  was  in¬ 
fluenced  in  the  way  that  he  was  influenced. 

I  have  just  made  a  few  short  extracts  from  Nietzsche, 
that  show  the  things  that  Nathan  read  and  which  no 
doubt  influenced  him.  These  extracts  are  short  and  taken 
almost  at  random. 

It  is  not  how  this  would  affect  you.  It  is  not  how  it 
would  affect  me.  The  question  is  how  it  did  affect  the 
impressionable,  visionary,  dreamy  mind  of  a  boy. 

At  seventeen,  at  sixteen,  at  eighteen,  while  healthy 
boys  were  playing  baseball  or  working  on  the  farm,  or 
doing  odd  jobs,  he  was  reading  Nietzsche,  a  boy  who 
never  should  have  seen  it,  at  that  early  age.  Babe  was 
obsessed  of  it,  and  here  are  some  of  the  things  which 
N  ietzsche  taught : 

“Why  so  soft,  oh,  my  brethren*?  Why  so  soft,  so  un¬ 
resisting  and  yielding?  Why  is  there  so  much  disavowal 
and  abnegation  in  your  heart?  Why  is  there  so  little 
fate  in  your  looks?  For  all  creators  are  hard,  and  it 
must  seem  blessedness  unto  you  to  press  )’Our  hand  upon 
millenniums  and  upon  wax.  This  new  table,  oh,  my 
brethren,  I  put  over  you:  Become  hard.  To  be  obsessed 
by  moral  consideration  presupposes  a  very  low  grade  of 
intellect.  We  should  substitute  for  morality  the  will 
to  our  own  end,  and  consequently  to  the  means  to  ac¬ 
complish  that. 

“A  great  man,  a  man  that  nature  has  built  up  and  in¬ 
vented  in  a  grand  style,  is  colder,  harder,  less  cautious 
and  more  free  from  the  fear  of  public  opinion.  He  does 
not  possess  the  virtues  which  are  compatible  with  re¬ 
spectability,  with  being  respected,  nor  any  of  those  things 
which  are  counted  among  the  virtues  of  the  hard.” 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


79 


Nietzsche  held  a  contemptuous,  scornful  attitude  to 
all  those  things  which  the  young  are  taught  as  important 
in  life;  a  fixing  of  new  values  which  are  not  the  values 
by  which  any  normal  child  has  ever  yet  been  reared — a 
philosophical  dream,  containing  more  or  less  truth,  that 
was  not  meant  by  anyone  to  be  applied  to  life. 

Again  he  says : 

“The  morality  of  the  master  class  is  irritating  to  the 
taste  of  the  present  day  because  of  its  fundamental  prin¬ 
ciple  that  a  man  has  obligation  only  to  his  equals;  that 
he  may  act  to  all  of  lower  rank  and  to  all  that  are  for¬ 
eign,  as  he  pleases.” 

In  other  words,  man  has  no  obligations;  he  may  do 
with  all  other  men  and  all  other  boys,  and  all  society, 
as  he  pleases — the  superman  was  a  creation  of  Nietzsche, 
but  it  has  permeated  every  college  and  university  in  the 
civilized  world. 

Again,  quoting  from  a  professor  of  a  university ; 

“Although  no  perfect  superman  has  yet  appeared  in 
history,  Nietzsche’s  types  are  to  be  found  in  the  world’s 
great  figures — Alexander,  Napoleon — in  the  wicked 
heroes  such  as  the  Borgias,  Wagner’s  Siegfried  and  Ib¬ 
sen’s  Brand — and  the  great  cosmopolitan  intellects  such 
as  Goethe  and  Stendahl.  These  were  the  gods  of  Nietz¬ 
sche’s  idolatry.” 

“The  superman-like  qualities  lie  not  in  their  genius, 
but  in  their  freedom  from  scruple.  They  rightly  felt 
themselves  to  be  above  the  law.  What  they  thought  was 
right,  not  because  sanctioned  by  any  law,  beyond  them¬ 
selves,  but  because  they  did  it.  So  the  superman  will  be 
a  law  unto  himself.  What  he  does  will  come  from  the 
will  and  superabundant  power  within  him.” 

Your  Honor,  I  could  read  for  a  week  from  Nietzsche, 
all  to  the  same  purpose,  and  the  same  end. 

H 


8o 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARR0W  IN  DEFENSE 


Counsel  have  said  that  because  a  man  believes  in 
murder  that  does  not  excuse  him. 

Quite  right.  But  this  is  not  a  case  like  the  anarchists 
case,  where  a  number  of  men,  perhaps  honestly  believing 
in  revolution  and  knowing  the  consequences  of  their  act 
and  knowing  its  illegal  character,  were  held  responsible 
for  murder. 

Of  course  the  books  are  full  of  statements  that  the 
fact  that  a  man  believes  in  committing  a  crime  does  not 
excuse  him. 

That  is  not  this  case,  and  counsel  must  know  that  it 
is  not  this  case.  Here  is  a  boy  at  sixteen  or  seventeen 
becoming  obsessed  with  these  doctrines.  There  isn’t  any 
question  about  the  facts.  Their  own  witnesses  tell  it  and 
every  one  of  our  witnesses  tell  it.  It  was  not  a  casual 
bit  of  philosophy  with  him;  it  was  his  life.  He  believed 
in  a  superman.  He  and  Dickie  Loeb  were  the  supermen. 
There  might  have  been  others,  but  they  were  two,  and 
two  chums.  The  ordinary  commands  of  society  were  not 
for  him. 

Many  of  us  read  this  philosophy  but  know  that  it  has 
no  actual  application  to  life;  but  not  he.  It  became  a 
part  of  his  being.  It  was  his  philosophy.  He  lived  it 
and  practiced  it;  he  thought  it  applied  to  him,  and  he 
could  not  have  believed  it  excepting  that  it  either  caused 
a  diseased  mind  or  was  the  result  of  a  diseased  mind. 

Now  let  me  call  your  attention  hastily  to  just  a  few 
facts  in  connection  with  it.  One  of  the  cases  is  a  New 
York  case,  where  a  man  named  Freeman  became  obsessed 
in  a  very  strange  way  of  religious  ideas.  He  read  the 
story  of  Isaac  and  Abraham  and  he  felt  a  call  that  he 
must  sacrifice  his  son.  He  arranged  an  altar  in  his  j 
parlor.  He  converted  his  wife  to  the  idea.  He  took  his 
little  babe  and  put  it  on  the  altar  and  cut  its  throat 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  8l 

Why?  Because  he  was  obsessed  of  that  idea.  Was  he 
sane?  Was  he  normal?  Was  his  mind  diseased?  Was 
this  poor  fellow  responsible?  Not  in  the  least.  And  he 
was  acquitted  because  he  was  the  victim  of  a  delusion. 
Men  are  largely  what  their  ideas  make  them.  Boys  are 
largely  what  their  ideas  make  them. 

Here  is  a  boy  who  by  day  and  by  night,  in  season  and 
out,  was  talking  of  the  superman,  owing  no  obligations 
to  anyone ;  whatever  gave  him  pleasure  he  should  do,  be¬ 
lieving  it  just  as  another  man  might  believe  a  religion 
or  any  philosophical  theory. 

You  remember  that  I  asked  Dr.  Church  about  these 
religious  cases  and  he  said  “yes,  many  people  go  to  the 
insane  asylum  on  account  of  them,”  that  “they  place  a 
literal  meaning  on  parables  and  believe  them  thorough¬ 
ly.”  I  asked  Dr.  Church,  whom  I  again  say  I  believe  to 
be  an  honest  man,  and  an  intelligent  man — I  asked  him 
whether  the  same  thing  might  he  done  or  might  come 
from  a  philosophical  belief,  and  he  said,  “if  one  believed 
it  strongly  enough.” 

And  I  asked  him  about  Nietzsche.  He  said  he  knew 
something  of  Nietzsche,  something  of  his  responsibility 
for  the  war,  for  which  he  perhaps  was  not  responsible. 
He  said  he  knew  something  about  his  doctrines.  I  asked 
him  what  became  of  him,  and  he  said  he  was  insane  for 
fifteen  years  just  before  the  time  of  his  death.  His  very 
doctrine  is  a  species  of  insanity. 

Here  is  a  man,  a  wise  man — perhaps  not  wise,  but 
brilliant — a  thoughtful  man  who  has  made  his  impress 
upon  the  world.  Every  student  of  philosophy  knows 
him.  His  own  doctrines  made  him  a  maniac.  And  here 
is  a  young  boy,  in  the  adolescent  age,  harassed  by  every¬ 
thing  that  harasses  children,  who  takes  this  philosophy 
and  believes  it  literally.  It  is  a  part  of  his  life.  It  is  his 


82 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


life.  Do  you  suppose  this  mad  act  could  have  been  done 
by  him  in  any  other  way?  What  could  he  have  to  win 
from  this  homicide? 

A  boy  with  a  beautiful  home,  with  automobiles,  a 
graduate  of  college,  going  to  Europe,  and  then  to  study 
law  at  Harvard;  as  brilliant  in  intellect  as  any  boy  that 
you  could  find;  a  boy  with  every  prospect  that  life  might 
hold  out  to  him;  and  yet  he  goes  out  and  commits  this 
weird,  strange,  wild,  mad  act,  that  he  may  die  on  the 
gallows  or  live  in  a  prison  cell  until  he  dies  of  old  age 
or  disease. 

He  did  it,  obsessed  of  an  idea,  perhaps  to  some  extent 
influenced  by  what  has  not  been  developed  publicly  in 
this  case — perversions  that  were  present  in  the  boy. 
Both  signs  of  insanity,  both,  together  with  this  act,  prov¬ 
ing  a  diseased  mind. 

Is  there  any  question  about  what  was  responsible  for 
him? 

What  else  could  be?  A  boy  in  his  youth,  with  every 
promise  that  the  world  could  hold  out  before  him — 
wealth  and  position  and  intellect,  yes,  genius,  scholar¬ 
ship,  nothing  that  he  could  not  obtain,  and  he  throws  it 
away,  and  mounts  the  gallows  or  goes  into  a  cell  for 
life.  It  is  too  foolish  to  talk  about.  Can  your  Honor 
imagine  a  sane  brain  doing  it?  Can  you  imagine  it  com¬ 
ing  from  anything  but  a  diseased  mind?  Can  you  imag¬ 
ine  it  is  any  part  of  normality?  And  yet,  your  Honor, 
you  are  asked  to  hang  a  boy  of  his  age,  abnormal,  ob¬ 
sessed  of  dreams  and  visions,  a  philosophy  that  destroyed 
his  life,  when  there  is  no  sort  of  question  in  the  world  as 
to  what  caused  his  downfall. 

Now,  I  have  said  that,  as  to  Loeb,  if  there  is  anybody 
to  blame  it  is  back  of  him.  Your  Honor,  lots  of  things 
happen  in  this  world  that  nobody  is  to  blame  for.  In 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


83 


fact,  I  am  not  very  much  for  settling  blame  myself.  If 
I  could  settle  the  blame  on  somebody  else  for  this  special 
act,  I  would  wonder  why  that  somebody  else  did  it,  and 
I  know  if  I  could  find  that  out,  I  would  move  it  back 
still  another  peg. 

I  know,  your  Honor,  that  every  atom  of  life  in  all  this 
universe  is  bound  up  together.  I  know  that  a  pebble 
cannot  be  thrown  into  the  ocean  without  disturbing  every 
drop  of  water  in  the  sea.  I  know  that  every  life  is  in¬ 
extricably  mixed  and  woven  with  every  other  life.  I 
know  that  every  influence,  conscious  and  unconscious, 
acts  and  reacts  on  every  living  organism,  and  that  no 
one  can  fix  the  blame.  I  know  that  all  life  is  a  series 
of  infinite  chances,  which  sometimes  result  one  way  and 
sometimes  another.  I  have  not  the  infinite  wisdom  that 
can  fathom  it,  neither  has  any  other  human  brain.  But 
I  do  know  that  if  back  of  it  is  a  power  that  made  it,  that 
power  alone  can  tell,  and  if  there  is  no  power,  then  it  is 
an  infinite  chance,  which  man  cannot  solve. 

Why  should  this  boy’s  life  be  bound  up  with  Frederick 
Nietzsche,  who  died  thirty  years  ago,  insane,  in  Ger¬ 
many?  I  don’t  know. 

I  only  know  it  is.  I  know  that  no  man  who  ever  wrote 
a  line  that  I  read  failed  to  influence  me  to  some  extent. 
I  know  that  every  life  I  ever  touched  influenced  me,  and 
I  influenced  it;  and  that  it  is  not  given  to  me  to  unravel 
the  infinite  causes  and  say,  “this  is  I,  and  this  is  you.” 
I  am  responsible  for  so  much;  and  you  are  responsible 
for  so  much.  I  know — I  know  that  in  the  infinite  uni¬ 
verse  everything  has  its  place  and  that  the  smallest  par¬ 
ticle  is  a  part  of  all.  Tell  me  that  you  can  visit  the 
wrath  of  fate  and  chance  and  life  and  eternity  upon  a 
nineteen-year-old-boy!  If  you  could,  justice  would  be  a 
travesty  and  mercy  a  fraud. 


84 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


I  might  say  further  about  Nathan  Leopold — where  did 
he  get  this  philosophy? — at  college?  He  did  not  make 
it,  your  Honor.  He  did  not  write  these  books,  and  I 
will  venture  to  say  there  are  at  least  ten  thousand  books 
on  Nietzsche  and  his  philosophy.  I  never  counted  them, 
but  I  will  venture  to  say  that  there  are  that  many  in  the 
libraries  of  the  world. 

No  other  philosopher  ever  caused  the  discussion  that 
Nietzsche  has  caused.  There  is  no  university  in  the 
world  where  the  professors  are  not  familiar  with  Nietz¬ 
sche;  not  one.  There  is  not  an  intellectual  man  in  the 
world  whose  life  and  feelings  run  to  philosophy,  who  is 
not  more  or  less  familiar  with  the  Nietzschean  philos¬ 
ophy.  Some  believe  it,  and  some  do  not  believe  it.  Some 
read  it  as  I  do,  and  take  it  as  a  theory,  a  dream,  a  vision, 
mixed  with  good  and  bad,  but  not  in  any  way  related  to 
human  life.  Some  take  it  seriously.  The  universities 
perhaps  do  not  all  teach  it,  for  perhaps  some  teach  noth¬ 
ing  in  philosophy;  but  they  give  the  boys  the  books  of 
the  masters,  and  tell  them  what  they  taught,  and  dis¬ 
cuss  the  doctrines. 

There  is  not  a  university  in  the  world  of  any  high 
standing  where  the  professors  do  not  tell  you  about 
Nietzsche,  and  discuss  it,  or  where  the  books  can  not 
be  found. 

I  will  guarantee  that  you  can  go  down  to  the  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Chicago  today — into  its  big  library — and  find 
over  a  thousand  volumes  on  Nietzsche,  and  I  am  sure  I 
speak  moderately.  If  this  boy  is  to  blame  for  this,  where 
did  he  get  it?  Is  there  any  blame  attaches  because  some¬ 
body  took  Nietzsche’s  philosophy  seriously  and  fashioned 
his  life  on  it?  And  there  is  not  question  in  this  case  but 
what  it  is  true.  Then  who  is  to  blame?  The  university 
would  be  more  to  blame  than  he  is.  The  scholars  of  the 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


85 


world  would  be  more  to  blame  than  he  is.  The  pub¬ 
lishers  of  the  world — and  Nietzsche’s  books  are  pub¬ 
lished  by  one  of  the  biggest  publishers  in  the  world — are 
more  to  blame  than  he.  Your  Honor,  it  is  hardly  fair 
to  hang  a  nineteen-year-old  boy  for  the  philosophy  that 
was  taught  him  at  the  university. 

Now,  I  do  not  want  to  be  misunderstood  about  this. 
Even  for  the  sake  of  saving  the  lives  of  my  clients,  I  do 
not  want  to  be  dishonest,  and  tell  the  court  something 
that  I  do  not  honestly  think  in  this  case.  I  do  not  be¬ 
lieve  that  the  universities  are  to  blame.  I  do  not  think 
they  should  be  held  responsible,  I  do  think,  however, 
that  they  are  too  large,  and  that  they  should  keep  a  closer 
watch,  if  possible,  upon  the  individual.  But,  you  can¬ 
not  destroy  thought  because,  forsooth,  some  brain  may  be 
deranged  by  thought.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  university, 
as  I  conceive  it,  to  be  the  great  storehouse  of  the  wisdom 
of  the  ages,  and  to  let  students  go  there,  and  learn,  and 
choose.  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  it  has  meant  the  death 
of  many;  that  we  cannot  help.  Every  changed  idea  in 
the  world  has  had  its  consequences.  Every  new  religious 
doctrine  has  created  its  victims.  Every  new  philosophy 
has  caused  suffering  and  death.  Every  new  machine  has 
carved  up  men  while  it  served  the  world.  No  railroad 
can  be  built  without  the  destruction  of  human  life.  No 
great  building  can  be  erected  but  that  unfortunate  work¬ 
men  fall  to  the  earth  and  die.  No  great  movement  that 
does  not  bear  its  toll  of  life  and  death;  no  great  ideal 
but  does  good  and  harm,  and  we  cannot  stop  because  it 
may  do  harm. 

I  have  no  idea  in  this  case  that  this  act  would  ever 
have  been  committed  or  participated  in  by  him  excepting 
for  the  philosophy  which  he  had  taken  literally,  which 
belonged  to  older  boys  and  older  men,  and  which  no  one 


86 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


can  take  literally  and  practice  literally  and  live.  So, 
your  Honor,  I  do  not  mean  to  unload  this  act  on  that 
man  or  this  man,  or  this  organization  or  that  organiza¬ 
tion.  I  am  trying  to  trace  causes.  I  am  trying  to  trace 
them  honestly.  I  am  trying  to  trace  them  with  the  light 
I  have.  I  am  trying  to  say  to  this  court  that  these  boys 
are  not  responsible  for  this;  and  that  their  act  was  due 
to  this  and  this,  and  this  and  this;  and  asking  this  court 
not  to  visit  the  judgment  of  its  wrath  upon  them  for 
things  for  which  they  are  not  to  blame. 

There  is  something  else  in  this  case,  your  Honor,  that 
is  stronger  still.  There  is  a  large  element  of  chance  in 
life.  I  know  I  will  die.  I  don’t  know  when;  I  don’t 
know  how;  I  don’t  know  where;  and  I  don’t  want  to 
know.  I  know  it  will  come.  I  know  that  it  depends  on 
infinite  chances.  Do  I  live  to  myself  ?  Did  I  make  my¬ 
self?  And  control  my  fate?  Can  I  fix  my  death  unless 
I  suicide — and  I  cannot  do  that  because  the  will  to  live  is 
too  strong;  I  know  it  depends  on  infinite  chances. 

Take  the  rabbit  running  through  the  woods;  a  fox 
meets  him  at  a  certain  fence.  If  the  rabbit  had  not 
started  when  it  did,  it  would  not  have  met  the  fox  and 
would  have  lived  longer.  If  the  fox  had  started  later 
or  earlier  it  would  not  have  met  the  rabbit  and  its  fate 
would  have  been  different. 

My  death  will  depend  upon  chances.  It  may  be  by 
the  taking  in  of  a  germ;  it  may  be  a  pistol;  it  may  be 
the  decaying  of  my  faculties,  and  all  that  makes  life;  it 
may  be  a  cancer;  it  may  be  any  one  of  an  indefinite  num¬ 
ber  of  things,  and  where  I  am  at  a  certain  time,  and 
whether  I  take  in  that  germ,  and  the  condition  of  my 
system  when  I  breathe  is  an  accident  which  is  sealed  up 
in  the  book  of  fate  and  which  no  human  being  can  open. 

These  boys,  neither  one  of  them,  could  possibly  have 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


87 


committed  this  act  excepting  by  coming  together.  It 
was  not  the  act  for  one;  it  was  the  act  of  two.  It  was 
the  act  of  their  planning,  their  conniving,  their  believ¬ 
ing  in  each  other;  their  thinking  themselves  supermen. 
Without  it  they  could  not  have  done  it.  It  would  not 
have  happened.  Their  parents  happened  to  meet,  these 
boys  happened  to  meet;  some  sort  of  chemical  alchemy 
operated  so  that  they  cared  for  each  other,  and  poor 
Bobby  Franks’  dead  body  was  found  in  the  culvert  as  a 
result.  Neither  of  them  could  have  done  it  alone. 

I  want  to  call  your  attention,  your  Honor,  to  the  two 
letters  in  this  case  which  settle  this  matter  to  my  mind 
conclusively;  not  only  the  condition  of  these  boys’  minds, 
but  the  terrible  fate  that  overtook  them. 

Your  Honor,  I  am  sorry  for  poor  Bobby  Franks,  and  I 
think  anybody  who  knows  me  knows  that  I  am  not  say¬ 
ing  it  simply  to  talk.  I  am  sorry  for  the  bereaved  father 
and  the  bereaved  mother,  and  I  would  like  to  know  what 
they  would  do  with  these  poor  unfortunate  lads  who  are 
here  in  this  court  today.  I  know  something  of  them,  of 
their  lives,  of  their  charity,  of  their  ideas,  and  nobody 
here  sympathizes  with  them  more  than  I. 

On  the  21st  day  of  May  poor  Bobby  Franks,  stripped 
and  naked,  was  left  in  a  culvert  down  near  the  Indiana 
line.  I  know  it  came  through  the  mad  act  of  mad  boys. 
Mr.  Savage  told  us  that  Franks,  if  he  lived,  would  have 
been  a  great  man  and  have  accomplished  much.  I  want 
to  leave  this  thought  with  your  Honor  now.  I  do  not 
know  what  Bobby  Franks  would  have  been  had  be  grown 
to  be  a  man.  I  do  not  know  the  laws  that  control  one’s 
growth.  Sometimes,  your  Honor,  a  boy  of  great  promise 
is  cut  off  in  his  early  youth.  Sometimes  he  dies  and  is 
placed  in  a  culvert.  Sometimes  a  boy  of  great  promise 
stands  on  a  trap  door  and  is  hanged  by  the  neck  until 


88 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


dead.  Sometimes  he  dies  of  diphtheria.  Death  some¬ 
how  pays  no  attention  to  age,  sex,  prospects,  wealth  or 
intellect. 

It  comes,  and  perhaps,  I  can  only  say  perhaps,  for  I 
never  professed  to  unravel  the  mysteries  of  fate,  and  I 
cannot  tell;  but  I  can  say — perhaps,  the  boy  who  died 
at  fourteen  did  as  much  as  if  he  had  died  at  seventy,  and 
perhaps  the  boy  who  died  as  a  babe  did  as  much  as  if  he 
had  lived  longer.  Perhaps,  somewhere  in  fate  and 
chance,  it  might  be  that  he  lived  as  long  as  he  should. 

And  I  want  to  say  this,  that  the  death  of  poor  little 
Bobby  Franks  should  not  be  in  vain.  Would  it  mean 
anything  if  on  account  of  that  death,  these  two  boys  were 
taken  out  and  a  rope  tied  around  their  necks  and  they 
died  felons?  Would  that  show  that  Bobby  Franks  had 
a  purpose  in  his  life  and  a  purpose  in  his  death?  No, 
your  Honor,  the  unfortunate  and  tragic  death  of  this 
weak  young  lad  should  mean  something.  It  should  mean 
an  appeal  to  the  fathers  and  the  mothers,  an  appeal  to 
the  teachers,  to  the  religious  guides,  to  society  at  large. 
It  should  mean  an  appeal  to  all  of  them  to  appraise  chil¬ 
dren,  to  understand  the  emotions  that  control  them,  to 
understand  the  ideas  that  possess  them,  to  teach  them  to 
avoid  the  pitfalls  of  life. 

Society,  too,  should  assume  its  share  of  the  burdens  of 
this  case,  and  not  make  two  more  tragedies,  but  use  this 
calamity  as  best  it  can  to  make  life  safer,  to  make  child¬ 
hood  easier,  and  more  secure,  to  do  something  to  cure  the 
cruelty,  the  hatred,  the  chance,  and  the  wilfulness  of  life. 

I  have  discussed  somewhat  in  detail  these  two  boys 
separately.  Their  coming  together  was  the  means  of 
their  undoing.  Your  Honor  is  familiar  with  the  facts 
in  reference  to  their  association.  They  had  a  weird,  al¬ 
most  impossible  relationship.  Leopold,  with  his  obses- 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


89 


sion  of  the  superman,  had  repeatedly  said  that  Loeb  was 
his  idea  of  the  superman.  He  had  the  attitude  toward 
him  that  one  has  to  his  most  devoted  friend,  or  that  a 
man  has  to  a  lover.  Without  the  combination  of  these 
two,  nothing  of  this  sort  probably  could  have  happened. 
It  is  not  necessary  for  us,  your  Honor,  to  rely  upon  words 
to  prove  the  condition  of  these  boys’  minds,  and  to 
prove  the  effect  of  this  strange  and  fatal  relationship  be¬ 
tween  these  two  boys. 

It  is  mostly  told  in  a  letter  which  the  state  itself  intro¬ 
duced  in  this  case.  Not  the  whole  story,  but  enough  of 
it  is  shown,  so  that  I  take  it  that  no  intelligent,  thought¬ 
ful  person  could  fail  to  realize  what  was  the  relation  be¬ 
tween  them  and  how  they  had  played  upon  each  other 
to  effect  their  downfall  and  their  ruin.  I  want  to  read 
this  letter  once  more,  a  letter  which  was  introduced  by 
the  state,  a  letter  dated  October  9th,  a  month  and  three 
days  before  their  trip  to  Ann  Arbor,  and  I  want  the  court 
to  say  in  his  own  mind  whether  this  letter  was  anything 
but  the  products  of  a  diseased  mind,  and  if  it  does  not 
show  a  relationship  that  was  responsible  for  this  terrible 
homicide.  This  was  written  by  Leopold  to  Loeb.  They 
lived  close  together,  only  a  few  blocks  from  each  other; 
saw  each  other  every  day;  but  Leopold  wrote  him  this 
letter ; 

October  9,1923. 

Dear  Dick: 

In  view  of  our  former  relations,  I  take  it  for  granted 
that  it  is  unnecessary  to  make  any  excuse  for  writing 
you  at  this  time,  and  still  I  am  going  to  state  my  reasons 
for  so  doing,  as  this  may  turn  out  to  be  a  long  letter,  and 
I  don’t  want  to  cause  you  the  inconvenience  of  reading  it 
all  to  find  out  what  it  contains  if  you  are  not  interested 
in  the  subjects  dealt  with. 


90 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


First,  I  am  enclosing  the  document  which  I  mentioned 
to  you  today,  and  which  I  will  explain  later.  Second, 
I  am  going  to  tell  you  of  a  new  fact  which  has  come  up 
since  our  discussion.  And  third,  I  am  going  to  put  in 
writing  what  my  attitude  toward  our  present  relations, 
with  a  view  of  avoiding  future  possible  misunderstand¬ 
ings,  and  in  the  hope  (though  I  think  it  rather  vain)  that 
possibly  we  may  have  misunderstood  each  other,  and  can 
yet  clear  this  matter  up. 

Now,  as  to  the  first,  I  wanted  you  this  afternoon,  and 
still  want  you,  to  feel  that  we  are  on  an  equal  footing 
legally,  and  therefore,  I  purposely  committed  the  same 
tort  of  which  you  were  guilty,  the  only  difference  being 
that  in  your  case  the  facts  would  be  harder  to  prove  than 
in  mine,  should  I  deny  them.  The  enclosed  document 
should  secure  you  against  changing  my  mind  in  admit¬ 
ting  the  facts,  if  the  matter  should  come  up,  as  it  would 
prove  to  any  court  that  they  were  true. 

As  to  the  second.  On  your  suggestion  I  immediately 
phoned  Dick  Rubel,  and  speaking  from  a  paper  pre¬ 
pared  beforehand  (to  be  sure  of  the  exact  wording)  said: 

“Dick,  when  we  were  together  yesterday,  did  I  tell 
you  that  Dick  (Loeb)  had  told  me  the  things  which  I 
then  told  you,  or  that  it  was  merely  my  opinion  that  I 
believed  them  to  be  so?” 

I  asked  this  twice  to  be  sure  he  understood,  and  on  the 
same  answer  both  times  (which  I  took  down  as  he  spoke) 
felt  that  he  did  understand. 

He  replied : 

“No,  you  did  not  tell  me  that  Dick  told  you  these 
things,  but  said  that  they  were  in  your  opinion  true.” 

He  further  denied  telling  you  subsequently  that  I  had 
said  that  they  were  gleaned  from  conversation  with  you, 
and  I  then  told  him  that  he  was  quite  right,  that  you 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


91 


never  had  told  me.  I  further  told  him  that  this  was 
merely  your  suggestion  of  how  to  settle  a  question  of  fact 
that  he  was  in  no  way  implicated,  and  that  neither  of 
us  would  be  angry  with  him  at  his  reply.  (I  imply  your 
assent  to  this.) 

This  of  course  proves  that  you  were  mistaken  this 
afternoon  in  the  question  of  my  having  actually  and 
technically  broken  confidence,  and  voids  my  apology, 
which  I  made  contingent  on  proof  of  this  matter. 

Now,  as  to  the  third,  last,  and  most  important  ques¬ 
tion.  When  you  came  to  my  home  this  afternoon  I  ex¬ 
pected  either  to  break  friendship  with  you  or  attempt  to 
kill  you  unless  you  told  me  why  you  acted  as  you  did 
yesterday. 

You  did,  however,  tell  me,  and  hence  the  question 
shifted  to  the  fact  that  I  would  act  as  before  if  you 
persisted  in  thinking  me  treacherous,  either  in  act  (which 
you  waived  if  Dick’s  opinion  went  with  mine)  or  in  in¬ 
tention. 

Now,  I  apprehend,  though  here  I  am  not  quite  sure, 
that  you  said  that  you  did  not  think  me  treacherous  in 
intent,  nor  ever  have,  but  that  you  considered  me  in  the 
wrong  and  expected  such  a  statement  from  me.  This 
statement  I  unconditionally  refused  to  make  until  such 
time  as  I  may  become  convinced  of  its  truth. 

However,  the  question  of  our  relation  I  think  must  be 
in  your  hands  (unless  the  above  conceptions  are  mis¬ 
taken),  inasmuch  as  you  have  satisfied  first  one  and  then 
the  other  requirement,  upon  which  I  agreed  to  refrain 
from  attempting  to  kill  you  or  refusing  to  continue  our 
friendship.  Hence  I  have  no  reason  not  to  continue  to 
be  on  friendly  terms  with  you,  and  would  under  ordinary 
conditions  continue  as  before. 

The  only  question,  then,  is  with  you.  You  demand 


92 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


me  to  perform  an  act,  namely,  state  that  I  acted  wrongly. 
This  I  refuse.  Now  it  is  up  to  you  to  inflict  the  penalty 
for  this  refusal — at  your  discretion,  to  break  friendship, 
inflict  physical  punishment,  or  anything  else  you  like,  or 
on  the  other  hand  to  continue  as  before. 

The  decision,  therefore,  must  rest  with  you.  This  is 
all  of  my  opinion  on  the  right  and  wrong  of  the  matter. 

Now  comes  a  practical  question.  I  think  that  I  would 
ordinarily  be  expected  to,  and  in  fact  do  expect  to  con¬ 
tinue  my  attitude  toward  you,  as  before,  until  I  leam 
either  by  direct  words  or  by  conduct  on  your  part  which 
way  your  decision  has  been  formed.  This  I  shall  do. 

Now  a  word  of  advice.  I  do  not  wish  to  influence  your 
decision  either  way,  but  I  do  want  to  warn  you  that  in 
case  you  deem  it  advisable  to  discontinue  our  friendship, 
that  in  both  our  interests  extreme  care  must  be  had.  The 

motif  of  “A  falling  out  of - ”  would  be  sure  to 

be  popular,  which  is  patently  undesirable  and  forms  an 
irksome  but  unavoidable  bond  between  us. 

Therefore,  it  is,  in  my  humble  opinion,  expedient, 
though  our  breech  need  be  no  less  real  in  fact,  yet  to 
observe  the  conventionalities,  such  as  salutation  on  the 
street  and  a  general  appearance  of  at  least  not  unfriendly 
relations  on  all  occasions  when  we  may  be  thrown  to¬ 
gether  in  public. 

Now,  Dick,  I  am  going  to  make  a  request  to  which  I 
have  perhaps  no  right,  and  yet  which  I  dare  to  make  also 
for  “Auld  Lang  Syne.”  Will  you,  if  not  too  incon¬ 
venient,  let  me  know  your  answer  (before  I  leave  tomor¬ 
row)  on  the  last  count?  This,  to  which  I  have  no  right, 
would  greatly  help  my  peace  of  mind  in  the  next  few 
days  when  it  is  most  necessary  to  me.  You  can  if  you 
will  merely  call  up  my  home  before  12  noon  and  leave 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  93 

a  message  saying,  “Dick  says  yes,”  if  you  wish  our  rela¬ 
tions  to  continue  as  before,  and  “Dick  says  no,”  if  not. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  add  that  your  decision  will  of 
course  have  no  effect  on  my  keeping  to  myself  our  con-, 
fidences  of  the  past,  and  that  I  regret  the  whole  affair 
more  than  I  can  say. 

Hoping  not  to  have  caused  you  too  much  trouble  in. 
reading  this,  I  am  (for  the  present),  as  ever 

“BABE.” 

Now,  I  undertake  to  say  that  under  any  interpretation 
of  this  case,  taking  into  account  all  the  things  your  Honor 
knows,  that  have  not  been  made  public,  or  leaving  them 
out,  nobody  can  interpret  that  letter  excepting  on  the 
theory  of  a  diseased  mind,  and  with  it  goes  this  strange 
document  which  was  referred  to  in  the  letter. 

“I,  Nathan  F.  Leopold,  Jr.,  being  under  no  duress  or 
compulsion,  do  hereby  affirm  and  declare  that  on  this, 
the  9th  day  of  October,  1923,  I  for  reasons  of  my  own* 
locked  the  door  of  the  room  in  which  I  was  with  one 
Richard  A.  Loeb,  with  the  intent  of  blocking  his  only 
feasible  mode  of  egress,  and  that  I  further  indicated  my 
intention  of  applying  physical  force  upon  the  person  of 
the  said  Richard  A.  Loeb  if  necessary  to  carry  out  my 
design,  to-wit,  to  block  his  only  feasible  mode  of  egress.” 

There  is  nothing  in  this  case,  whether  heard  alone  by 
the  court  or  heard  in  public  that  can  explain  these  docu¬ 
ments,  on  the  theory  that  the  defendants  were  normal 
human  beings. 

I  want  to  call  your  attention  then  to  an  extract  from 
another  letter  by  Babe,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  call  him 
Babe,  until  you  hang  him. 

On  October  10th,  this  is  written  by  Leopold  on  the 
20th  Century  train,  the  day  after  the  other  letter  was 
written,  and  in  it  he  says: 


94 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


“  .  .  .  now,  that  is  all  that  is  in  point  to  our  con¬ 
troversy.” 

But  I  am  going  to  add  a  little  more  in  an  effort  to  ex¬ 
plain  my  system  of  the  Nietzschean  philosophy  with  re¬ 
gard  to  you. 

“It  may  not  have  occurred  to  you  why  a  mere  mistake 
in  judgment  on  your  part  should  be  treated  as  a  crime 
when  on  the  part  of  another  it  should  not  be  so  consid¬ 
ered.  Here  are  the  reasons.  In  formulating  a  super¬ 
man  he  is,  on  account  of  certain  superior  qualities  in¬ 
herent  in  him,  exempted  from  the  ordinary  laws  wdiich 
govern  ordinary  men.  He  is  not  liable  for  anything  he 
may  do,  whereas  others  would  be,  except  for  the  one 
crime  that  it  is  possible  for  him  to  commit — to  make  a 
mistake. 

“Now  obviously  any  code  which  conferred  upon  an 
individual  or  upon  a  group  extraordinary  privileges  with¬ 
out  also  putting  on  him  extraordinary  responsibility, 
would  be  unfair  and  bad.  Therefore,  the  superman  is 
held  to  have  committed  a  crime  every  time  he  errs  in 
judgment — a  mistake  excusable  in  others.  But  you  may 
say  that  you  have  previously  made  mistakes  which  I  did 
not  treat  as  crimes.  This  is  true.  To  cite  an  example, 
the  other  night  you  expressed  the  opinion,  and  insisted, 
that  Marcus  Aurelius  Antonius  was  practically  the 
founder  of  Stoicism.  In  so  doing  )?ou  committed  a  crime. 
But  it  was  a  slight  crime,  and  I  chose  to  forgive  it.  I 
have,  and  had  before  that,  forgiven  the  crime  which  you 
committed  in  committing  the  error  in  judgment  which 
caused  the  whole  train  of  events.  I  did  not  and  do  not 
wish  to  charge  you  with  crime,  but  I  feel  justified  in 
using  any  of  the  consequences  of  your  crime  for  which 
you  are  held  responsible,  to  my  advantage.  This  and 
only  this  I  did,  so  you  see  how  careful  you  must  be.” 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  95 

Is  that  the  letter  of  a  normal  eighteen-year-old  boy,  or 
is  it  the  letter  of  a  diseased  brain? 

Is  that  the  letter  of  boys  acting  as  boys  should,  and 
thinking  as  boys  should,  or  is  it  the  letter  of  one  whose 
philosophy  has  taken  possession  of  him,  who  understands 
that  what  the  world  calls  a  crime  is  something  that  the 
superman  may  do — who  believes  that  the  only  crime  the 
superman  can  commit  is  to  make  a  mistake?  He  be¬ 
lieved  it.  He  was  immature.  It  possessed  him.  It  was 
manifest  in  the  strange  compact  that  the  court  already 
knows  about  between  these  two  boys,  by  which  each  was 
to  yield  something  and  each  was  to  give  something.  Out 
of  that  compact  and  out  of  these  diseased  minds  grew 
this  terrible  crime. 

Tell  me,  was  this  compact  the  act  of  normal  boys,  of 
boys  who  think  and  fell  as  boys  should — boys  who  have 
the  thoughts  and  emotions  and  physical  life  that  boys 
should  have?  There  is  nothing  in  all  of  it  that  corres¬ 
ponds  with  normal  life.  There  is  a  weird,  strange,  un¬ 
natural  disease  in  all  of  it  which  is  responsible  for  this 
deed. 

I  submit  the  facts  do  not  rest  on  the  evidence  of  these 
boys  alone.  It  is  proven  by  the  writings;  it  is  proven  by 
every  act.  It  is  proven  by  their  companions,  and  there 
can  be  no  question  about  it. 

We  brought  into  this  courtroom  a  number  of  their 
boy  friends,  whom  they  had  known  day  by  day,  who  had 
associated  with  them  in  the  club  house,  were  their  con¬ 
stant  companions,  and  they  tell  the  same  stories.  They 
:ell  the  story  that  neither  of  these  two  boys  was  respon¬ 
sible  for  his  conduct. 

Maremont,  whom  the  State  first  called,  one  of  the 
>ldest  of  the  boys,  said  that  Leopold  had  never  had  any 
udgment  of  any  sort.  They  talked  about  the  super- 


96 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


man.  Leopold  argued  his  philosophy.  It  was  a  religion 
with  him.  But  as  to  judgment  of  things  in  life  he  had 
none.  He  was  developed  intellectually,  wanting  emo¬ 
tionally,  developed  in  those  things  which  a  boy  does  not 
need  and  should  not  have  at  his  age,  but  absolutely  void 
of  the  healthy  feelings,  of  the  healthy  instincts  of  prac¬ 
tical  life  that  are  necessary  to  the  child. 

We  called  not  less  than  ten  or  twelve  of  their  com¬ 
panions  and  all  of  them  testified  the  same:  Dickie  Loeb 
was  not  allowed  by  his  companions  the  privileges  of  his 
class  because  of  his  childishness  and  his  lack  of  judgment. 
Nobody  denies  it,  and  yet  the  State’s  Attorney  makes  a 
play  here  on  account  of  this  girl  whose  testimony  was 
so  important,  Miss  Nathan.  What  did  the  State’s  At¬ 
torney  do  in  this  matter?  Before  we  ever  got  to  these 
defendants  these  witnesses  were  called  in  by  subpoenas 
of  the  Grand  Jury,  and  then  taken  into  the  office  of  the 
State’s  Attorney;  they  were  young  boys  and  girls,  taken 
just  when  this  story  broke.  Without  any  friends,  with¬ 
out  any  counsel,  they  were  questioned  in  the  State’s  At¬ 
torney’s  office,  and  they  were  asked  to  say  whether  they 
had  seen  anything  strange  or  insane  about  these  boys. 
Several  of  them  said  no.  Not  one  of  them  had  any  warn¬ 
ing,  not  one  of  them  had  any  chance  to  think,  not  one  of 
them  knew  what  it  meant,  not  one  of  them  had  a  chance 
to  recall  the  lives  of  both  and  they  were  in  the  presence 
of  lawyers  and  policemen  and  officers,  and  still  they 
seek  to  bind  these  young  people  by  those  statements. 

Miss  Nathan  is  quoted  as  saying  that  she  never  noticed 
any  mental  disease  in  them,  and  yet  she  said  the  lawyers 
refused  to  put  down  all  she  said  and  directed  the  reporter 
not  to  take  all  she  said;  that  she  came  in  there  from  a 
sick  bed  without  any  notice;  she  had  no  time  to  think 
about  it;  and  then  she  told  this  court  of  her  association 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  y7 

with  Dickie  Loeb,  and  the  strange,  weird,  childish  things 
he  did. 

One  other  witness,  a  young  man,  and  only  one  other, 
was  called  in  and  examined  by  the  State’s  Attorney  on 
ithe  day  that  this  confession  was  made;  and  we  placed 
him  on  the  stand  and  he  practically  tells  the  same  story;, 
that  he  was  called  to  the  State’s  Attorney’s  office;  he 
had  no  chance  to  think  about  it;  he  had  no  chance  to  con¬ 
sider  the  conduct  of  these  boys;  he  was  called  in  im¬ 
mediately  and  the  questions  were  put  to  him;  and  when 
he  was  called  by  us  and  had  an  opportunity  to  consider 
it  and  know  what  it  meant  he  related  to  this  court  what 
has  been  related  by  every  other  witness  in  this  case. 

As  to  the  standing  of  these  boys  amongst  their  fel¬ 
lows — that  they  were  irresponsible,  that  they  had  no 
judgment,  that  they  were  childish,  that  their  acts  were 
strange,  that  their  beliefs  were  impossible  for  boys — is 
beyond  question  in  this  case. 

And  what  did  they  do  on  the  other  side? 

It  was  given  out  that  they  had  a  vast  army  of  wit¬ 
nesses.  They  called  three.  A  professor  who  talked  with 
Leopold  only  upon  his  law  studies,  and  two  others  who 
admitted  all  that  we  said,,  on  cross  examination,  and  the 
rest  were  dismissed.  So  it  leaves  all  of  this  beyond  dis¬ 
pute  and  admitted  in  this  case. 

Now  both  sides  have  called  alienists  and  I  will  refer 
to  that  for  a  few  moments.  I  shall  only  take  a  little 
time  with  the  alienists. 

The  facts  here  are  plain;  when  these  boys  had  made 
the  confession  on  Sunday  afternoon  before  their  counsel 
or  their  friends  had  any  chance  to  see  them,  Mr.  Crowe 
sent  out  for  four  men.  He  sent  out  for  Dr.  Patrick,  who 
san  alienist;  Dr.  Church,  who  is  an  alienist;  Dr.  Krohn, 
vho  is  a  witness,  a  testifier;  and  Dr.  Singer,  who  is  pretty 


98 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


good — I  would  not  criticise  him  but  I  would  not  class 
him  with  Patrick  and  with  Church. 

I  have  said  to  your  Honor  that  in  my  opinion  he  sent 
for  the  two  ablest  men  in  Chicago  as  far  as  the  public 
knows  them,  Dr.  Church  and  Dr.  Patrick.  I  have  said 
to  your  Honor  that  if  Judge  Crowe  had  not  got  to  them 
first  I  would  have  tried  to  get  them.  I  not  only  say  I 
would  have  tried,  but  I  say  I  would  have  succeeded.  You 
heard  Dr.  Church’s  testimony.  Dr.  Church  is  an  honest 
man  though  an  alienist.  Under  cross  examination  he 
admitted  every  position  which  I  took.  He  admitted  the 
failure  of  emotional  life  in  these  boys;  he  admitted  its 
importance;  he  admitted  the  importance  of  beliefs 
strongly  held  in  human  conduct;  he  said  himself  that  if 
he  could  get  at  all  the  facts  he  would  understand  what 
was  back  of  this  strange  murder.  Every  single  position 
that  we  have  claimed  in  this  case  Dr.  Church  admitted. 

Dr.  Singer  did  the  same.  The  only  difference  be¬ 
tween  them  was  this,  it  took  but  one  question  to  get  Dr. 
Church  to  admit  it,  and  it  took  ten  to  a  dozen  to  get  Dr. 
Singer.  He  objected  and  hedged  and  ran  and  quibbled. 
There  could  be  no  mistake  about  it,  and  your  Honor 
heard  it  in  this  court  room. 

He  sought  every  way  he  could  to  avoid  the  truth,  and 
when  it  came  to  the  point  that  he  could  not  dodge  any 
longer,  he  admitted  every  proposition  just  exactly  the 
same  as  Dr.  Church  admitted  them:  The  value  of  emo¬ 
tional  life;  its  effect  on  conduct;  that  it  was  the  ruling 
thing  in  conduct,  as  every  person  knows  who  is  familiar 
with  psychology  and  who  is  familiar  with  the  humar 
system. 

Could  there  be  any  doubt,  your  Honor,  but  what  botl 
those  witnesses,  Church  and  Singer,  or  any  doubt  bu 
what  Patrick  would  have  testified  for  us?  Now  what  die  ) 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


99 


they  do  in  their  examination?  What  kind  of  a  chance 
did  these  alienists  have?  It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  they 
had  none.  Church,  Patrick,  Krohn  went  into  a  room 
with  these  two  boys  who  had  been  in  the  possession  of 
the  State’s  Attorney’s  office  for  sixty  hours;  they  were 
surrounded  by  policemen,  were  surrounded  by  guards 
and  detectives  and  State’s  Attorneys;  twelve  or  fifteen 
of  them,  and  here  they  told  their  story.  Of  course  this 
audience  had  a  friendly  attitude  toward  them.  I  know 
my  friend  Judge  Crowe  had  a  friendly  attitude  because 
I  saw  divers,  various  and  sundry  pictures  of  Prosecutor 
Crowe  taken  with  these  boys. 

When  I  first  saw  them  I  believed  it  showed  friendship 
for  the  boys,  but  now  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  he  had 
them  taken  just  as  a  lawyer  who  goes  up  in  the  country 
fishing  has  his  picture  taken  with  his  catch. 

The  boys  had  been  led  doubtless  to  believe  that  these 
people  were  friends.  They  were  taken  there,  in  the 
presence  of  all  this  crowd.  What  was  done?  The  boys 
told  their  story,  and  that  was  all. 

Of  course,  Krohn  remembered  a  lot  that  did  not  take 
place — and  we  would  expect  that  of  him;  and  he  forgot 
much  that  did  take  place — and  we  would  expect  that  of 
him,  too.  So  far  as  the  honest  witnesses  were  concerned, 
they  said  that  not  a  word  was  spoken  excepting  a  little 
conversation  upon  birds  and  the  relation  of  the  story 
that  they  had  already  given  to  the  State’s  Attorney;  and 
from  that,  and  nothing  else,  both  Patrick  and  Church 
said  they  showed  no  reaction  as  ordinary  persons  should 
show  it,  and  intimated  clearly  that  the  commission  of 
the  crime  itself  would  put  them  on  inquiry  as  to  whether 
these  boys  were  mentally  right;  both  admitted  that  the 
conditions  surrounding  them  made  the  right  kind  of  ex- 


100 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


amination  impossible;  both  admitted  that  they  needed  a 
better  chance  to  form  a  reliable  opinion. 

The  most  they  said  was  that  at  this  time  they  saw  no 
evidence  of  insanity. 

Now,  your  Honor,  no  experts,  and  no  alienists  with 
any  chance  to  examine,  have  testified  that  these  boys 
were  normal. 

Singer  did  a  thing  more  marvelous  still.  He  never 
saw  these  boys  until  he  came  into  this  court,  excepting 
when  they  were  brought  down  in  violation  of  their  con¬ 
stitutional  rights  to  the  office  of  Judge  Crowe,  after  they 
had  been  turned  over  to  the  jailer,  and  there  various  ques¬ 
tions  were  asked  them,  and  to  all  of  these  the  boys  re¬ 
plied  that  they  respectfully  refused  to  answer  on  advice 
of  counsel.  And  yet  that  was  enough  for  Singer. 

Your  Honor,  if  these  boys  had  gone  to  the  office  of 
any  one  of  these  eminent  gentlemen,  had  been  taken  by 
their  parents  or  gone  by  themselves,  and  the  doctors  had 
seriously  tried  to  find  out  whether  there  was  anything 
wrong  about  their  minds,  how  would  they  have  done  it? 
They  would  have  taken  them  patiently  and  carefully. 
They  would  have  sought  to  get  their  confidence.  They 
would  have  listened  to  their  story.  They  would  have 
listened  to  it  in  the  attitude  of  a  father  listening  to  his 
child.  You  know  it.  Every  doctor  knows  it.  In  no 
other  way  could  they  find  out  their  mental  condition. 
And  the  men  who  are  honest  with  this  question  have 
admitted  it. 

And  yet  Dr.  Krohn  will  testify  that  they  had  the  best 
chance  in  the  world,  when  his  own  associates,  sitting 
where  they  were,  said  that  they  did  not. 

Your  Honor,  nobody’s  life  or  liberty  or  property 
should  be  taken  from  them  upon  an  examination  like 
that.  It  was  not  an  examination.  It  was  simply  an 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


lOl 


effort  to  get  witnesses,  regardless  of  facts,  who  might  at 
some  time  come  into  court  and  give  their  testimony,  to 
take  these  boys’  lives. 

Now,  I  imagine  that  in  closing  this  case  Judge  Crowe 
will  say  that  our  witnesses  mainly  came  from  the  east. 
That  is  true.  And  he  is  responsible  for  it.  I  am  not 
blaming  him,  but  he  is  responsible  for  it.  There  are  other 
alienists  in  Chicago,  and  the  evidence  shows  that  we  had 
the  boys  examined  by  numerous  ones  in  Chicago.  We 
wanted  to  get  the  best.  Did  we  get  them? 

Your  Honor  knows  that  the  place  where  a  man  lives 
does  not  affect  his  truthfulness  or  his  ability.  We 
brought  the  man  who  stands  probably  above  all  of  them, 
and  who  certainty  is  far  superior  to  anybody  called  upon 
the  other  side.  First  of  all,  we  called  Dr.  William  A. 
White.  And  who  is  he?  For  many  years  he  has  been 
superintendent  of  the  Government  Hospital  for  the  in¬ 
sane  in  Washington;  a  man  who  has  written  more  books, 
delivered  more  lectures  and  had  more  honors  and  knows 
this  subject  better  than  all  of  their  alienists  put  together; 
a  man  who  plainly  came  here  not  for  money,  and  who 
receives  for  his  testimony  the  same  per  diem  as  is  paid 
by  the  other  side;  a  man  who  knows  his  subject,  and 
whose  ability  and  truthfulness  must  have  impressed  this 
court. 

It  will  not  do,  your  Honor,  to  say  that  because  Dr. 
White  is  not  a  resident  of  Chicago  that  he  lies.  No  man 
stands  higher  in  the  United  States,  no  man  is  better 
known  than  Dr.  White,  his  learning  and  intelligence  was 
obvious  from  his  evidence  in  this  case. 

Who  else  did  we  get?  Do  I  need  to  say  anything 
about  Dr.  Healy?  Is  there  any  question  about  his  in¬ 
tegrity?  A  man  who  seldom  goes  into  court  except  upon 
the  order  of  the  court. 


102 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


Your  Honor  was  connected  with  the  Municipal  Court. 
You  know  that  Dr.  Healy  was  the  first  man  who  oper¬ 
ated  with  the  courts  in  the  City  of  Chicago  to  give  aid 
to  the  unfortunate  youths  whose  minds  were  afflicted  and 
who  were  the  victims  of  the  law. 

No  man  stands  higher  in  Chicago  than  Dr.  Healy.  No 
man  has  done  as  much  work  in  the  study  of  adolescence. 
No  man  has  either  read  or  written  or  thought  or  worked 
as  much  with  the  young.  No  man  knows  the  adolescent 
boy  as  well  as  Dr.  Healy. 

Dr.  Healy  began  his  research  and  his  practice  in  the 
City  of  Chicago,  and  was  the  first  psychiatrist  of  the 
boys’  court.  He  was  then  made  a  director  of  the  Baker 
Foundation  of  Boston  and  is  now  carrying  on  his  work 
in  connection  with  the  courts  of  Boston. 

His  books  are  known  wherever  men  study  boys.  His 
reputation  is  known  all  over  the  United  States  and  in 
Europe.  Compare  him  and  his  reputation  with  Dr. 
Krohn.  Compare  it  with  any  other  witness  that  the  state 
called  in  this  case. 

Dr.  Glueck,  who  was  for  years  the  alienist  at  Sing 
Sing,  and  connected  with  the  penal  institutions  in  the 
State  of  New  York;  a  man  of  eminent  attainments  and 
ripe  scholarship.  No  one  is  his  superior. 

And  Dr.  Hulbert,  a  young  man  who  spent  nineteen 
days  in  the  examination  of  these  boys,  together  with  Dr. 
Bowen,  an  eminent  doctor  in  his  line  from  Boston.  These 
two  physicians  spent  all  this  time  getting  every  detail  of 
these  boys’  lives,  and  structures;  each  one  of  these 
alienists  took  all  the  time  they  needed  for  a  thorough 
examination,  without  the  presence  of  lawyers,  detectives 
and  policemen.  Each  one  of  these  psychiatrists  tells 
this  court  the  story,  the  sad,  pitiful  story,  of  the  un¬ 
fortunate  minds  of  these  two  young  lads. 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


103 


I  submit,  your  Honor,  that  there  can  be  no  question 
about  the  relative  value  of  these  two  sets  of  alienists; 
there  can  be  no  question  of  their  means  of  undertaking; 
there  can  be  no  question  but  that  White,  Glueck,  Hul- 
bert  and  Healy  knew  what  they  were  talking  about,  for 
they  had  every  chance  to  find  out.  They  are  either  lying 
to  this  court,  or  their  opinion  is  good. 

On  the  other  hand,  not  one  single  man  called  by  the 
State  had  any  chance  to  know.  He  was  called  in  to  see 
these  boys,  the  same  as  the  state  would  call  a  hangman: 
“Here  are  the  boys;  officer,  do  your  duty.”  And  that  is 
all  there  was  of  it. 

Now,  your  Honor,  I  shall  pass  that  subject.  I  think 
all  of  the  facts  of  this  extraordinary  case,  all  of  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  the  alienists,  all  that  your  Honor  has  seen  and 
heard,  all  their  friends  and  acquaintances  who  have  come 
here  to  enlighten  this  court — I  think  all  of  it  shows  that 
this  terrible  act  was  the  act  of  immature  and  diseased 
brains,  the  act  of  children. 

Nobody  can  explain  it  in  any  other  way. 

No  one  can  imagine  it  in  any  other  way. 

It  is  not  possible  that  it  could  have  happened  in  any 
other  way.  And,  I  submit,  your  Honor,  that  by  every 
law  of  humanity,  by  every  law  of  justice,  by  every  feel¬ 
ing  of  righteousness,  by  every  instinct  of  pity,  mercy  and 
charity,  your  Honor  should  say  that  because  of  the  con¬ 
dition  of  these  boys’  minds,  it  would  be  monstrous  to 
visit  upon  them  the  vengeance  that  is  asked  by  the  State. 

I  want  to  discuss  now  another  thing  which  this  court 
must  consider  and  which  to  my  mind  is  absolutely  con¬ 
clusive  in  this  case.  That  is,  the  age  of  these  boys. 

I  shall  discuss  it  more  in  detail  than  I  have  discussed 
it  before,  and  I  submit,  your  Honor,  that  it  is  not  pos¬ 
sible  for  any  court  to  hang  these  two  boys  if  he  pays  any 


104  PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 

attention  whatever  to  the  modem  attitude  toward  the 
young,  if  he  pays  any  attention  whatever  to  the  prec¬ 
edents  in  this  county,  if  he  pays  any  attention  to  the 
humane  instincts  which  move  ordinary  man. 

I  have  a  list  of  executions  in  Cook  County  beginning 
in  1840,  which  I  presume  covers  the  first  one,  because  I 
asked  to  have  it  go  to  the  beginning.  Ninety  poor  un¬ 
fortunate  men  have  given  up  their  lives  to  stop  murder 
in  Chicago.  Ninety  men  have  been  hanged  by  the  neck 
until  dead,  because  of  the  ancient  superstition  that  in 
some  way  hanging  one  man  keeps  another  from  commit¬ 
ting  a  crime.  The  ancient  superstition,  I  say,  because  I 
defy  the  state  to  point  to  a  criminologist,  a  scientist,  a 
student,  who  has  ever  said  it.  Still  we  go  on,  as  if  human 
conduct  was  not  influenced  and  controlled  by  natural 
laws  the  same  as  all  the  rest  of  the  Universe  is  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  law.  We  treat  crime  as  if  it  had  no  cause.  We  go 
on  saying,  “Hang  the  unfortunates,  and  it  will  end.” 
Was  there  ever  a  murder  without  a  cause?  Was  there 
ever  a  crime  without  a  cause?  And  yet  all  punishment 
proceeds  upon  the  theory  that  there  is  no  cause;  and  the 
only  way  to  treat  crime  is  to  intimidate  every  one  into 
goodness  and  obedience  to  law.  We  lawyers  are  a  long 
way  behind. 

Crime  has  its  cause.  Perhaps  all  crimes  do  not  have 
the  same  cause,  but  they  all  have  some  cause.  And 
people  today  are  seeking  to  find  out  the  cause.  We 
lawyers  never  try  to  find  out.  Scientists  are  studying  it; 
criminologists  are  investigating  it;  but  we  lawyers  go 
on  and  on  and  on,  punishing  and  hanging  and  thinking 
that  by  general  terror  we  can  stamp  out  crime. 

It  never  occurs  to  the  lawyer  that  crime  has  a  cause 
as  certainly  as  disease,  and  that  the  way  to  rationally 
treat  any  abnormal  condition  is  to  remove  the  cause. 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  lOjf 

If  a  doctor  were  called  on  to  treat  typhoid  fever  he 
would  probably  try  to  find  out  what  kind  of  milk  or 
water  the  patient  drank,  and  perhaps  clean  out  the  well 
so  that  no  one  else  could  get  typhoid  from  the  same 
source.  But,  if  a  lawyer  was  called  on  to  treat  a  typhoid 
patient,  he  would  give  him  thirty  days  in  jail,  and  then 
he  would  think  that  nobody  else  would  ever  dare  to 
take  it.  If  the  patient  got  well  in  fifteen  days,  he  would 
be  kept  until  his  time  was  up;  if  the  disease  was  worse 
at  the  end  of  thirty  days,  the  patient  would  be  released 
because  his  time  was  out. 

As  a  rule,  lawyers  are  not  scientists.  They  have 
learned  the  doctrine  of  hate  and  fear,  and  they  think 
that  there  is  only  one  way  to  make  men  good,  and  that 
is  to  put  them  in  such  terror  that  they  do  not  dare  to 
be  bad.  They  act  unmindful  of  history,  and  science,  and 
all  the  experience  of  the  past. 

Still,  we  are  making  some  progress.  Courts  give  at¬ 
tention  to  some  things  that  they  did  not  give  attention 
to  before. 

Once  in  England  they  hanged  children  seven  years  of 
age;  not  necessarily  hanged  them,  because  hanging  was 
never  meant  for  punishment;  it  was  meant  for  an  exhibi¬ 
tion.  If  somebody  committed  crime,  he  would  be  hanged 
by  the  head  or  the  heels,  it  didn’t  matter  much  which, 
at  the  four  cross  roads,  so  that  everybody  could  look  at 
him  until  his  bones  were  bare,  and  so  that  people  would 
be  good  because  they  had  seen  the  grewsome  result  of 
crime  and  hate. 

Hanging  was  not  necessarily  meant  for  punishment. 
The  culprit  might  be  killed  in  any  other  way,  and  then 
hanged — yes.  Hanging  was  an  exhibition.  They  were 
hanged  on  the  highest  hill,  and  hanged  at  the  cross-ways, 
and  hanged  in  public  places,  so  that  all  men  could  see. 


106  PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 

If  there  is  any  virtue  in  hanging,  that  was  the  logical 
way,  because  you  cannot  awe  men  into  goodness  unless 
they  know  about  the  hanging.  We  have  not  grown  bet¬ 
ter  than  the  ancients.  We  have  grown  more  squeamish; 
we  do  not  like  to  look  at  it;  that  is  all.  They  hanged 
them  at  seven  years;  they  hanged  them  again  at  eleven 
and  fourteen. 

We  have  raised  the  age  of  hanging.  We  have  raised 
it  by  the  humanity  of  courts,  by  the  understanding  of 
courts,  by  the  progress  in  science  which  at  last  is  reaching 
the  law;  and  in  ninety  men  hanged  in  Illinois  from  its  be¬ 
ginning,  not  one  single  person  under  twenty-three  was 
ever  hanged  upon  a  plea  of  guilty — not  one.  If  your 
Honor  should  do  this,  you  would  violate  every  precedent 
that  had  been  set  in  Illinois  for  almost  a  century.  There 
can  be  no  excuse  for  it,  and  no  justification  for  it,  be¬ 
cause  this  is  the  policy  of  the  law  which  is  rooted  in  the 
feelings  of  humanity,  which  are  deep  in  every  human 
being  that  thinks  and  feels.  There  have  been  two  or 
three  cases  where  juries  have  convicted  boys  younger 
than  this,  and  where  courts  on  convictions  have  refused 
to  set  aside  the  sentence  because  a  jury  had  found  it. 

First,  I  want  to  call  your  attention,  your  Honor,  to 
the  cases  on  pleas  of  guilty  in  the  State  of  Illinois.  Back 
of  the  year  1896  the  record  does  not  show  ages.  After 
that,  which  is  the  large  part,  probably  sixty  out  of  ninety 
— all  show  the  age.  Not  the  age  at  which  they  are 
hanged,  as  my  friend  Marshall  thought,  but  the  age  at 
the  time  of  the  verdict  or  sentence  as  is  found  today. 

In  all  the  history  of  Illinois — I  am  not  absolutely  cer¬ 
tain  of  it  back  of  1896,  but  there  are  so  many  of  them 
that  I  know  about  from  the  books  and  otherwise,  that 
I  feel  I  am  safe  in  saying  there  is  no  exception  to  the  rule 
— but  since  1896  everyone  is  recorded.  The  first  hang- 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  lOJ 

ing  in  Illinois — on  a  plea  of  guilty,  was  May  1 5,  1896, 
when  a  young  colored  man,  24  years  old,  was  sentenced 
to  death  by  Judge  Baker. 

Judge  Baker  I  knew  very  well;  a  man  of  ability,  a 
fine  fellow,  but  a  man  of  moods.  I  do  not  know  whether 
the  court  remembers  him;  but  that  was  the  first  hanging 
on  a  plea  of  guilty  to  the  credit  of  any  man  in  Illinois 
— I  mean  in  Chicago.  I  have  not  obtained  the  statistics 
from  the  rest  of  the  state,  but  I  am  satisfied  they  are  the 
same,  and  that  boy  was  colored,  and  twenty-four,  either 
one  of  which  should  have  saved  him  from  death,  but  the 
color  probably  had  something  to  do  with  compassing  his 
destruction. 

The  next  was  Julius  Mannow.  Now,  he  really  was 
not  hanged  on  a  plea  of  guilty,  though  the  records  so 
show.  I  will  state  to  your  Honor  just  what  the  facts 
are.  Joseph  Windreth  and  Julius  Mannow  were  tried 
together  in  1896  on  a  charge  of  murder  with  robbery. 
When  the  trial  was  nearly  finished,  Julius  Mannow 
withdrew  his  plea  of  guilty.  He  was  defended  by  Elliott, 
whom  I  remember  very  well,  and  probably  your  Honor 
does.  And  under  what  he  supposed  was  an  agreement 
with  the  court  he  plead  this  man  guilty,  after  the  case 
was  nearly  finished. 

Now,  I  am  not  here  to  discuss  whether  there  was  an 
agreement  or  not.  Judge  Horton  who  tried  this  case 
did  not  sentence  him,  but  he  waited  for  the  jury’s  verdict 
on  Windreth,  and  they  found  him  guilty  and  sentenced 
him  to  death,  and  Judge  Horton  followed  that  sentence. 
Had  this  case  come  into  that  court  on  a  plea  of  guilty, 
it  probably  would  have  been  different;  perhaps  not; 
but  it  really  was  not  a  question  of  a  plea  of  guilty;  and 
he  was  twenty-eight  or  thirty  years  old. 

I  might  say  in  passing  as  to  Judge  Horton — he  is 


108  PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 

dead.  I  knew  him  very  well.  In  some  ways  I  liked 
him.  I  tried  a  case  for  him  after  he  had  left  the  bench. 
But  I  will  say  this:  He  was  never  noted  in  Chicago  for 
his  kindness  and  his  mercy,  and  anybody  who  remembers 
knows  that  I  am  stating  the  truth. 

The  next  man  who  was  hanged  on  a  plea  of  guilty  was 
Daniel  McCarthy,  twenty-nine  years  old,  in  1897,  by 
Judge  Stein.  Well,  he  is  dead.  I  am  very  careful  about 
being  kind  to  the  dead,  so  I  will  say  that  he  never  knew 
what  mercy  was,  at  least  while  he  lived.  Whether  he 
does  now,  I  cannot  say.  Still  he  was  a  good  lawyer. 
That  was  in  1897. 

It  was  twenty-two  years,  your  Honor,  before  anybody 
else  was  hanged  in  Cook  County  on  a  plea  of  guilty,  old 
or  young,  twenty-two  years  before  a  judge  had  either 
the  old  or  young  walk  into  his  court  and  throw  himself 
on  the  mercy  of  the  court  and  get  the  rope  for  it;  and 
a  great  many  men  have  been  tried  for  murder,  and  a  great 
many  men  have  been  executed,  and  a  great  many  men 
have  plead  guilty  and  have  been  sentenced,  either  to  a 
term  of  years  or  life  imprisonment,  over  three  hundred 
in  that  twenty-two  years,  and  no  man,  old  or  young, 
was  executed. 

But  twenty-two  years  later,  in  1919,  Thomas  Fitz¬ 
gerald,  a  man  about  forty  years  old,  was  sentenced  for 
killing  a  little  girl,  plead  guilty  before  my  friend  Judge 
Crowe,  and  he  was  put  to  death.  And  that  is  all.  In 
the  history  of  Cook  County  that  is  all  that  have  been 
put  to  death  on  a  plea  of  guilty.  That  is  all. 

Your  Honor,  what  excuse  could  you  possibly  have  for 
putting  these  boys  to  death?  You  would  have  to  turn 
your  back  on  every  precedent  of  the  past.  You  would 
have  to  turn  your  back  on  the  progress  of  the  world. 
You  would  have  to  ignore  all  human  sentiment  and  feel- 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  109 

ing,  of  which  I  know  the  court  has  his  full  share.  You 
would  have  to  do  all  this  if  you  would  hang  boys  of 
eighteen  and  nineteen  years  of  age  who  have  come  into 
this  court  and  thrown  themselves  upon  your  mercy. 

I  might  do  it,  but  I  would  want  good  reason  for  it, 
which  does  not  exist  and  cannot  exist  in  this  case,  unless 
publicity,  worked-up  feeling,  and  mad  hate,  is  a  reason, 
and  I  know  it  is  not. 

Since  that  time  one  other  man  has  been  sentenced  to 
death  of  a  plea  of  guilty.  That  was  James  H.  Smith, 
twenty-eight  years  old,  sentenced  by  Judge  Kavanagh. 
But  we  were  spared  his  hanging.  That  was  in  January, 
1923.  I  could  tell  you  why  it  was,  and  I  will  tell  you 
later.  It  is  due  to  the  cruelty  that  has  paralyzed  the 
hearts  of  men  growing  out  of  the  war.  We  are  accus¬ 
tomed  to  blood,  your  Honor.  It  used  to  look  mussy, 
and  make  us  feel  squeamish.  But  we  have  not  only  seen 
it  shed  in  buckets  full,  we  have  seen  it  shed  in  rivers, 
lakes  and  oceans,  and  we  have  delighted  in  it;  we  have 
preached  it,  we  have  worked  for  it,  we  have  advised  it, 
we  have  taught  it  to  the  young,  encouraged  the  old,  until 
the  world  has  been  drenched  in  blood,  and  it  has  left  its 
stains  upon  every  human  heart  and  upon  every  human 
mind,  and  has  almost  stifled  the  feelings  of  pity  and 
charity  that  have  their  natural  home  in  the  human 
breast. 

I  do  not  believe  that  Judge  Kavanagh  would  ever 
have  done  this  except  for  the  great  war  which  has  left 
its  mark  on  all  of  us,  one  of  the  terrible  by-products  of 
those  wretched  years. 

This  man  was  reprieved,  but  James  Smith  was 
twenty-eight  years  old;  he  was  old  enough  to  vote,  he 
was  old  enough  to  make  contracts,  he  needed  no  guard¬ 
ian,  he  was  old  enough  to  do  ail  the  things  that  an  older 


no 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


man  can  do.  He  was  not  a  boy;  a  boy  that  is  the 
special  ward  of  the  state,  and  the  special  ward  of  the 
court,  and  who  cannot  act  except  in  special  ways  because 
he  is  not  mature.  He  was  twenty-eight  and  he  is  not 
dead  and  will  not  die.  His  life  was  saved,  and  you  may 
go  over  every  hanging,  and  if  your  Honor  shall  decorate 
the  gallows  with  these  two  boys,  your  Honor  will  be  the 
first  in  Chicago  who  has  ever  done  such  a  deed.  And, 
I  know  you  will  not. 

Your  Honor,  I  must  hasten  along,  for  I  will  close 
tonight.  I  know  I  should  have  closed  before.  Still  there 
seems  so  much  that  I  would  like  to  say.  I  will  spend 
a  few  more  minutes  on  this  record  of  hangings.  There 
was  one  boy  nineteen  years  old,  Thomas  Schultz,  who 
was  convicted  by  a  jury  and  executed.  There  was  one 
boy  who  has  been  referred  to  here,  eighteen,  Nicholas 
Viani,  who  was  convicted  by  a  jury  and  executed.  No 
one  else  under  twenty-one,  your  Honor,  has  been  con¬ 
victed  by  a  jury  and  sentenced  to  death.  Now,  let  me 
speak  a  word  about  these. 

Schultz  was  convicted  in  1912.  Viani  was  convicted 
in  1920.  Of  course,  I  believe  it  should  not  have  hap¬ 
pened,  but  your  Honor  knows  the  difference  between  a 
plea  of  guilty  and  a  verdict.  It  is  easy  enough  for  a 
jury  to  divide  the  responsibility  by  twelve.  They  have 
not  the  age  and  the  experience  and  the  charity  which 
comes  from  age  and  experience.  It  is  easy  for  some 
State’s  Attorneys  to  influence  some  juries.  I  don’t  know 
who  defended  the  poor  boy,  but  I  guarantee  that  it  was 
npt  the  best  lawyers  at  the  bar, — but  doubtless  a  good 
lawyer  prosecuted  him,  and  when  he  was  convicted  the 
court  said  that  he  had  rested  his  fate  with  the  jury,  and 
he  would  not  disturb  the  verdict. 

I  do  not  know  whether  your  Honor,  humane  and  con- 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


111] 


siderate  as  I  believe  you  to  be,  would  have  disturbed  a 
jury’s  verdict  in  this  case,  but  I  know  that  no  judge  in 
Cook  County  ever  himself  upon  a  plea  of  guilty  passed 
judgment  of  death  in  a  case  below  the  age  of  twenty- 
three,  and  only  one  at  the  age  of  twenty-three  was  ever 
hanged  on  a  plea  of  guilty. 

Viani  I  have  looked  up,  and  I  don’t  care  who  did  it  or 
how  it  was  done,  it  was  a  shame  and  disgrace  that  an 
eighteen  year  old  boy  should  be  hanged,  in  1920,  or  a 
nineteen  year  old  boy  should  be  hanged,  in  1920,  and 
I  am  assuming  it  is  all  right  to  hang  somebody,  which 
it  is  not.  I  have  looked  up  the  Viani  case  because  my 
friend  Marshall  read  a  part  where  it  said  that  Viani 
pleaded  guilty.  He  did  not  say  it  positively,  because 
he  is  honest,  and  he  knew  there  might  be  a  reason.  Viani 
was  tried  and  convicted — I  don’t  remember  the  name  of 
the  judge — in  1920. 

There  were  various  things  working  against  him.  It 
was  in  1920,  after  the  war.  Most  anything  might  have 
happened  after  the  war,  which  I  will  speak  of  later,  and 
not  much  later,  for  I  am  to  close  tonight.  He  was  con¬ 
victed  in  1920.  There  was  a  band  of  Italian  desper¬ 
adoes,  so-called.  I  don’t  know.  Sam  Cardinelli  was 
the  leader,  a  man  forty  years  of  age.  But  their  records 
were  very  bad. 

This  boy  should  have  been  singled  out  from  the  rest. 
If  I  had  been  defending  him,  and  he  had  not  been,  I 
never  would  have  come  into  court  again.  But  he  was 
not.  He  was  tried  with  the  rest.  I  have  looked  up  the 
records,  and  I  find  that  he  was  in  the  position  of  most 
of  these  unfortunates;  he  did  not  have  a  lawyer. 

Your  Honor,  the  question  of  whether  a  man  is  con¬ 
victed  or  acquitted  does  not  always  depend  on  the  evi¬ 
dence  or  entirely  on  the  judge  or  entirely  on  the  jury. 


1 12 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


The  lawyer  has  something  to  do  with  it.  And  the  State 
always  has — always  has  at  least  moderately  good  law¬ 
yers.  And  the  defendants  have,  if  they  can  get  the 
money;  and  if  they  cannot,  they  have  nobody.  Viani, 
who  was  on  trial  with  others  for  his  life,  had  a  lawyer 
appointed  by  the  court.  Ed  Raber,  if  I  am  rightly  in¬ 
formed,  prosecuted.  He  had  a  fine  chance,  this  poor 
Italian  boy,  tried  with  three  or  four  others.  And  prose¬ 
cuted  by  one  of  the  most  relentless  prosecutors  Chicago 
has  ever  known.  This  boy  was  defended  by  somebody 
whose  name  I  never  heard,  who  was  appointed  by  the 
court. 

Your  Honor,  if  in  this  court  a  boy  of  eighteen  and 
a  boy  of  nineteen  should  be  hanged  on  a  plea  of  guilty, 
in  violation  of  every  precedent  of  the  past,  in  violation 
of  the  policy  of  the  law  to  take  care  of  the  young,  in 
violation  of  all  the  progress  that  has  been  made  and  of 
the  humanity  that  has  been  shown  in  the  care  of  the 
young;  in  violation  of  the  law  that  places  boys  in  re¬ 
formatories  instead  of  prisons, — if  your  Honor  in  viola¬ 
tion  of  all  that  and  in  the  face  of  all  the  past  should 
stand  here  in  Chicago  alone  to  hang  a  boy  on  a  plea  of 
guilty,  then  we  are  turning  our  faces  backward  toward 
the  barbarism  which  once  possessed  the  world.  If  your 
Honor  can  hang  a  boy  eighteen,  some  other  judge  can 
hang  him  at  seventeen,  or  sixteen,  or  fourteen.  Some 
day,  if  there  is  any  such  thing  as  progress  in  the  world, 
if  there  is  any  spirit  of  humanity  that  is  working  in  the 
hearts  of  men,  some  dav  men  would  look  back  upon  this 
as  a  barbarous  age  which  deliberately  set  itself  in  the 
way  of  progress,  humanity  and  sympatlw,  and  committed 
an  unforgivable  act. 

Yet  your  Honor  has  been  asked  to  hang,  and  I  must 
refer  here  for  a  minute  to  something  which  I  dislike  to 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


113 


discuss.  I  hesitated  whether  to  pass  it  by  unnoticed  or 
to  speak  of  it,  but  feel  that  I  must  say  something  about 
it,  and  that  was  the  testimony  of  Gortland,  the  police¬ 
man.  He  came  into  this  court,  the  only  witness  who  said 
that  young  Leopold  told  him  that  he  might  get  into  the 
hands  of  a  friendly  judge  and  succeed.  Your  Honor, 
that  is  a  blow  below  the  belt.  There  isn’t  a  word  of 
truth  in  his  statement,  as  I  can  easily  prove  to  your 
Honor.  It  was  carved  out  of  the  air,  to  awe  and  influ¬ 
ence  the  court,  and  place  him  in  a  position  where  if  he 
saved  life  someone  might  be  malicious  enough  to  say 
that  he  was  a  friendly  judge,  and,  if  he  took  it,  the  fear 
might  invade  the  community  that  he  did  not  dare  to  be 
merciful. 

I  am  sure  that  your  Honor  knows  there  is  only  one 
way  to  do  in  this  case,  and  I  know  you  will  do  it.  You 
will  take  this  case,  with  your  judgment  and  your  con¬ 
science,  and  settle  it  as  you  think  it  should  be  settled. 
I  may  approve  or  I  may  disapprove,  or  Judge  Crowe  may 
approve  or  disapprove,  or  the  public  may  approve  or 
disapprove,  but  you  must  satisfy  yourself  and  you  will. 

Now,  let  me  take  Gortland’s  testimony  for  a  minute; 
and  I  am  not  going  over  the  record.  It  is  all  here.  He 
swore  that  on  the  night  after  the  arrest  of  these  two 
boys,  Nathan  Leopold  told  him,  in  discussing  the  case, 
that  a  friendly  judge  might  save  him.  He  is  the  first 
man  who  testified  for  the  State  that  any  of  us  cross 
examined,  if  you  remember.  They  called  witness  after 
witness  to  prove  something  that  did  not  need  to  be  proved 
under  a  plea  of  guilty.  Then  this  came,  which  to  me 
was  a  poisoned  piece  of  perjury,  with  a  purpose,  and  I 
cross  examined  him: 

“Did  you  make  any  record?” 

“Yes,  I  think  I  did.” 


114 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


“Where  is  it?” 

“I  think  I  have  it.” 

“Let  me  see  it.” 

“Yes.” 

There  was  not  a  word  or  a  syllable  upon  that  paper. 

“Did  you  make  any  other?” 

“Yes.” 

“When  did  you  make  it?” 

“Within  two  or  three  days  of  the  occurrence.” 

“Let  me  see  that.” 

He  said  he  would  bring  it  back  later. 

“Did  you  make  another?” 

“Yes.” 

“What  was  it?” 

“A  complete  report  to  the  chief  of  police.” 

“Is  it  in  there?” 

“I  think  so.” 

“Will  you  bring  that?” 

“Yes.” 

He  brought  them  both  into  this  court.  They  con¬ 
tained,  all  these  reports,  a  complete  or  almost  a  complete 
copy  of  everything  that  happened,  but  not  one  word  on 
this  subject.  He  deliberately  said  that  he  made  that 
record  within  a  few  days  of  the  time  it  occurred,  and 
that  he  told  the  office  about  it  within  a  few  days  of  the 
time  it  occurred.  And  then  what  did  he  say?  Then  he 
came  back  in  answer  to  nw  cross  examination,  and  said 
that  he  never  told  Judge  Crowe  about  it  until  the  night 
before  Judge  Crowe  made  his  opening  statement  in  this 
case.  Six  weeks  after  he  heard  it,  long  after  the  time  he 
said  that  he  made  a  record  of  it,  and  there  was  not  a 
single  word  or  syllable  about  this  matter  in  any  report 
he  made. 

I  am  sorry  to  discuss  it;  I  am  sorry  to  embarrass  this 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  115 

court,  but  what  can  I  do?  I  want  your  Honor  to  know 
that  if  in  your  judgment  you  think  these  boys  should 
hang,  we  will  know  it  is  your  judgment.  It  is  hard 
enough,  for  a  court  to  sit  where  you  sit,  with  the  eyes  of 
the  world  upon  you,  in  the  fierce  heat  of  public  opinion, 
for  and  against.  It  is  hard  enough,  without  any  lawyer 
making  it  harder.  I  assure  you  it  is  with  deep  regret  that 
I  even  mention  the  evidence,  and  I  will  say  no  more 
about  it,  excepting  that  this  statement  was  a  deliberate 
lie,  made  out  of  whole  cloth,  and  his  own  evidence 
shows  it. 

Now,  your  Honor,  I  have  spoken  about  the  war.  I 
believed  in  it.  I  don’t  know  whether  I  was  crazy  or  not. 
Sometimes  I  think  perhaps  I  was.  I  approved  of  it;  I 
joined  in  the  general  cry  of  madness  and  despair.  I 
urged  men  to  fight.  I  was  safe  because  I  was  too  old  to 
go.  I  was  like  the  rest.  What  did  they  do?  Right  or 
wrong,  justifiable  or  unjustifiable — which  I  need  not  dis¬ 
cuss  today — it  changed  the  world.  For  four  long  years 
the  civilized  world  was  engaged  in  killing  men.  Chris¬ 
tian  against  Christian,  barbarians  uniting  with  Christians 
to  kill  Christians;  anything  to  kill.  It  was  taught  in 
every  school,  aye  in  the  Sunday  schools.  The  little  chil¬ 
dren  played  at  war.  The  toddling  children  on  the  street. 
Do  you  suppose  this  world  has  ever  been  the  same  since 
then  ?  How  long,  your  Honor,  will  it  take  for  the  world 
to  get  back  the  humane  emotions  that  were  slowly  grow¬ 
ing  before  the  war?  How  long  will  it  take  the  calloused 
hearts  of  men  before  the  scars  of  hatred  and  cruelty  shall 
be  removed? 

We  read  of  killing  one  hundred  thousand  men  in  a 
day.  We  read  about  it  and  we  rejoiced  in  it — if  it  was 
the  other  fellows  who  were  killed.  We  were  fed  on  flesh 
and  drank  blood.  Even  down  to  the  prattling  babe.  I 


Il6  PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 

need  not  tell  your  Honor  this,  because  you  know;  I  need 
not  tell  you  how  many  upright,  honorable  young  boys 
have  come  into  this  court  charged  with  murder,  some 
saved  and  some  sent  to  their  death,  boys  who  fought  in 
this  war  and  learned  to  place  a  cheap  value  on  human 
life.  You  know  it  and  I  know  it.  These  boys  were 
brought  up  in  it.  The  tales  of  death  were  in  their  homes, 
their  playgrounds,  their  schools;  they  were  in  the  news¬ 
papers  that  they  read;  it  was  a  part  of  the  common 
frenzy — what  was  a  life?  It  was  nothing.  It  was  the 
least  sacred  thing  in  existence  and  these  boys  were 
trained  to  this  cruelty. 

It  will  take  fifty  years  to  wipe  it  out  of  the  human 
heart,  if  ever.  I  know  this,  that  after  the  Civil  War  in 
1865,  crimes  of  this  sort  increased,  marvelously.  No  one 
needs  to  tell  me  that  crime  has  no  cause.  It  has  as 
definite  a  cause  as  any  other  disease,  and  I  know  that 
out  of  the  hatred  and  bitterness  of  the  Civil  War  crime 
increased  as  America  had  never  know  it  before.  I  know 
that  growing  out  of  the  Napoleonic  wars  there  was  an 
era  of  crime  such  as  Europe  had  never  seen  before.  I 
know  that  Europe  is  going  through  the  same  experience 
today;  I  know  it  has  followed  every  war;  and  I  know  it 
has  influenced  these  boys  so  that  life  was  not  the  same 
to  them  as  it  would  have  been  if  the  world  had  not  been 
made  red  with  blood.  I  protest  against  the  crimes  and 
mistakes  of  society  being  visited  upon  them.  All  of  us 
have  our  share  in  it.  I  have  mine.  I  cannot  tell  and  I 
shall  never  know  how  many  words  of  mine  might  have 
given  birth  to  cruelty  in  place  of  love  and  kindness  and 
charity. 

Your  Honor  knows  that  in  this  very  court  crimes  of 
violence  have  increased  growing  out  of  the  war.  Not 
necessarily  by  those  who  fought  but  by  those  that  learned 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


117 


that  blood  was  cheap,  and  human  life  was  cheap,  and  if 
the  State  could  take  it  lightly  why  not  the  boy?  There 
are  causes  for  this  terrible  crime.  There  are  causes,  as 
I  have  said,  for  everything  that  happens  in  the  world. 
War  is  a  part  of  it;  education  is  a  part  of  it;  birth  is  a 
part  of  it;  money  is  a  part  of  it, — all  these  conspired  to 
compass  the  destruction  of  these  two  poor  boys. 

Has  the  court  any  right  to  consider  anything  but  these 
two  boys?  The  State  says  that  your  Honor  has  a  right 
to  consider  the  welfare  of  the  community,  as  you  have. 
If  the  welfare  of  the  community  would  be  benefited  by 
taking  these  lives,  well  and  good.  I  think  it  would  work 
evil  that  no  one  could  measure.  Has  your  Honor  a  right 
to  consider  the  families  of  these  two  defendants?  I 
have  been  sorry,  and  I  am  sorry  for  the  bereavement  of 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Franks,  for  those  broken  ties  that  cannot 
be  healed.  All  I  can  hope  and  wish  is  that  some  good 
may  come  from  it  all.  But  as  compared  with  the  fam¬ 
ilies  of  Leopold  and  Loeb,  the  Franks  are  to  be  envied — 
and  everyone  knows  it. 

I  do  not  know  how  much  salvage  there  is  in  these  two 
boys.  I  hate  to  say  it  in  their  presence,  but  what  is  there 
to  look  forward  to?  I  do  not  know  but  what  your  Honor 
would  be  merciful  if  you  tied  a  rope  around  their  necks 
and  let  them  die;  merciful  to  them,  but  not  merciful  to 
civilization,  and  not  merciful  to  those  who  would  be  left 
behind.  To  spend  the  balance  of  their  days  in  prison 
is  mighty  little  to  look  forward  to,  if  anything.  Is  it 
anything?  They  may  have  the  hope  that  as  the  years 
roll  around  they  might  be  released.  I  do  not  know.  I 
do  not  know.  I  will  be  honest  with  this  court  as  I  have 
tried  to  be  from  the  beginning.  I  know  that  these  boys 
are  not  fit  to  be  at  large.  I  believe  they  will  not  be  until 
they  pass  through  the  next  stage  of  life,  at  forty-five  or 


Il8  PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 

fifty.  Whether  they  will  be  then,  I  cannot  tell.  I  am 
sure  of  this;  that  I  will  not  be  here  to  help  them.  So  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  it  is  over. 

I  would  not  tell  this  court  that  I  do  not  hope  that  some 
time,  when  life  and  age  have  changed  their  bodies,  as  it 
does,  and  has  changed  their  emotions,  as  it  does, — that 
they  may  once  more  return  to  life.  I  would  be  the  last 
person  on  earth  to  close  the  door  of  hope  to  any  human 
being  that  lives,  and  least  of  all  to  my  clients.  But  what 
have  they  to  look  forward  to?  Nothing.  And  I  think 
here  of  the  stanza  of  Housman: 

“Now  hollow  fires  bum  out  to  black. 

And  lights  are  fluttering  low: 

Square  your  shoulders,  lift  your  pack 
And  leave  your  friends  and  go. 

O  never  fear,  lads,  naught’s  to  dread. 

Look  not  left  nor  right: 

In  all  the  endless  road  you  tread 
There’s  nothing  but  the  night.” 

I  care  not,  your  Honor,  whether  the  march  begins  at 
the  gallows  or  when  the  gates  of  Joliet  close  upon  them, 
there  is  nothing  but  the  night,  and  that  is  little  for  any 
human  being  to  expect. 

But  there  are  others  to  consider.  Here  are  these  two 
families,  who  have  led  honest  lives,  who  will  bear  the 
name  that  they  bear,  and  future  generations  must  carry 
it  on. 

Here  is  Leopold’s  father, — and  this  boy  was  the  pride 
of  his  life.  He  watched  him,  he  cared  for  him,  he 
worked  for  him;  the  boy  was  brilliant  and  accomplished, 
he  educated  him,  and  he  thought  that  fame  and  position 
awaited  him,  as  it  should  have  awaited.  It  is  a  hard 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER  119 

thing  for  a  father  to  see  his  life’s  hopes  crumble  into 
dust. 

Should  he  be  considered?  Should  his  brothers  be  con¬ 
sidered?  Will  it  do  society  any  good  or  make  your  life 
safer,  or  any  human  being’s  life  safer,  if  it  should  be 
handed  down  from  generation  to  generation,  that  this 
boy,  their  kin,  died  upon  the  scaffold? 

And  Loeb’s,  the  same.  Here  is  the  faithful  uncle  and 
brother,  who  have  watched  here  day  by  day,  while 
Dickie’s  father  and  his  mother  are  too  ill  to  stand  this 
terrific  strain,  and  shall  be  waiting  for  a  message  which 
means  more  to  them  than  it  can  mean  to  you  or  me. 
Shall  these  be  taken  into  account  in  this  general  bereave¬ 
ment? 

Have  they  any  rights?  Is  there  any  reason,  your 
Honor,  why  their  proud  names  and  all  the  future  genera¬ 
tions  that  bear  them  shall  have  this  bar  sinister  written 
across  them?  How  many  boys  and  girls,  how  many 
unborn  children  will  feel  it?  It  is  bad  enough  as  it  is, 
God  knows.  It  is  bad  enough,  however  it  is.  But  it’s 
not  yet  death  on  the  scaffold.  It’s  not  that.  And  I  ask 
your  Honor,  in  addition  to  all  that  I  have  said,  to  save 
two  honorable  families  from  a  disgrace  that  never  ends, 
and  which  could  be  of  no  avail  to  help  any  human  being 
that  lives. 

Now,  I  must  say  a  word  more  and  then  I  will  leave 
this  with  you  where  I  should  have  left  it  long  ago.  None 
of  us  are  unmindful  of  the  public;  courts  are  not,  and 
juries  are  not.  We  placed  our  fate  in  the  hands  of  a 
trained  court,  thinking  that  he  would  be  more  mindful 
and  considerate  than  a  jury.  I  cannot  say  how  people; 
feel.  I  have  stood  here  for  three  months  as  one  might 
stand  at  the  ocean  trying  to  sweep  back  the  tide.  I 
hope  the  seas  are  subsiding  and  the  wind  is  falling,  and 


120 


PLEA  OF  CLARENCE  DARROW  IN  DEFENSE 


I  believe  they  are,  but  I  wish  to  make  no  false  pretense 
to  this  court.  The  easy  thing  and  the  popular  thing  to 
do  is  to  hang  my  clients.  I  know  it.  Men  and  women 
who  do  not  think  will  applaud.  The  cruel  and  thought¬ 
less  will  approve.  It  will  be  easy  today;  but  in  Chicago, 
and  reaching  out  over  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land, 
more  and  more  fathers  and  mothers,  the  humane,  the 
kind  and  the  hopeful,  who  are  gaining  an  understanding 
and  asking  questions  not  only  about  these  poor  boys,  but 
about  their  own, — these  will  join  in  no  acclaim  at  the 
death  of  my  clients.  These  would  ask  that  the  shedding 
of  blood  be  stopped,  and  that  the  normal  feelings  of 
man  resume  their  sway.  And  as  the  days  and  the  months 
and  the  years  go  on,  they  will  ask  it  more  and  more. 
But,  your  Honor,  what  they  shall  ask  may  not  count. 
I  know  the  easy  way.  I  know  your  Honor  stands  be¬ 
tween  the  future  and  the  past.  I  know  the  future  is 
with  me,  and  what  I  stand  for  here;  not  merely  for  the 
lives  of  these  two  unfortunate  lads,  but  for  all  boys  and 
all  girls;  for  all  of  the  young,  and  as  far  as  possible,  for 
all  of  the  old.  I  am  pleading  for  life,  understanding, 
charity,  kindness,  and  the  infinite  mercy  that  considers 
all.  I  am  pleading  that  we  overcome  cruelty  with  kind¬ 
ness  and  hatred  with  love.  I  know  the  future  is  on  my 
side.  Your  Honor  stands  between  the  past  and  the  fu¬ 
ture.  You  may  hang  these  boys;  you  may  hang  them 
by  the  neck  until  they  are  dead.  But  in  doing  it  you 
will  turn  your  face  toward  the  past.  In  doing  it  you 
are  making  it  harder  for  every  other  boy  who  in  ignorance 
and  darkness  must  grope  his  way  through  the  mazes 
which  only  childhood  knows.  In  doing  it  you  will  make 
it  harder  for  unborn  children.  You  may  save  them  and 
make  it  easier  for  every  child  that  some  time  may  stand 
where  these  boys  stand.  You  will  make  it  easier  for 


OF  TWO  YOUTHS  ACCUSED  OF  MURDER 


121 


every  human  being  with  an  aspiration  and  a  vision  and 
a  hope  and  a  fate.  I  am  pleading  for  the  future;  I  am 
pleading  for  a  time  when  hatred  and  cruelty  will  not 
control  the  hearts  of  men.  When  we  can  learn  by  reason 
and  judgment  and  understanding  and  faith  that  all  life 
is  worth  saving,  and  that  mercy  is  the  highest  attribute 
of  man. 

I  feel  that  I  should  apologize  for  the  length  of  time 
I  have  taken.  This  case  may  not  be  as  important  as  I 
think  it  is,  and  I  am  sure  I  do  not  need  to  tell  this  court, 
or  to  tell  my  friends  that  I  would  fight  just  as  hard  for 
the  poor  as  for  the  rich.  If  I  should  succeed  in  saving 
these  boys’  lives  and  do  nothing  for  the  progress  of  the 
law,  I  should  feel  sad,  indeed.  If  I  can  succeed,  my 
greatest  reward  and  my  greatest  hope  will  be  that  I 
have  done  something  for  the  tens  of  thousands  of  other 
boys,  for  the  countless  unfortunates  who  must  tread  the 
same  road  in  blind  childhood  that  these  poor  boys  have 
trod, — that  I  have  done  something  to  help  human  under¬ 
standing,  to  temper  justice  with  mercy,  to  overcome  hate 
with  love. 

I  was  reading  last  night  of  the  aspiration  of  the  old 
Persian  poet,  Omar  Khayyam.  It  appealed  to  me  as 
the  highest  that  I  can  vision.  I  wish  it  was  in  my  heart, 
and  I  wish  it  was  in  the  hearts  of  all. 

“So  I  be  written  in  the  Book  of  Love, 

I  do  not  care  about  that  Book  above. 

Erase  my  name  or  write  it  as  you  will. 

So  I  be  written  in  the  Book  of  Love.” 


Lq'rm' 


^  ;  :  V‘-'  :V- 

Miiui.rii'K'iiii  i  *  •  * •  *  *  < 

liiUWs'vitU  hujh.’i'-h 


;:i  >  i  lii; 


